DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprise” should read “comprises”; and
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the medicine” renders the claim indefinite. The specification sets forth that the ingestion device includes the medicine and the detection device is used to determine if the medicine is taken, however, Claim 1 sets forth that the detection device has the medicine. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the ingestion device has the medicine.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, the limitation “lost without being taken” renders the claim indefinite because “lost” has no objective boundary in the claim (lost to whom, under what condition, after what time, what detection logic distinguishes “lost” from “not yet taken”). For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the detection device determines the ingestion device was not taken and is lost based on signal intensity decreasing below a threshold for a predetermined time or more.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, the limitation “the ingestion device comprises a capsule-like shape” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is setting forth an additional element (a capsule-like shape) or if the claim is setting forth that the ingestion device is capsule-like shaped. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the ingestion device is capsule-like shaped.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the ingestion device includes an IC configured to control the piezoelectric element” renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites inconsistent relationships between the ingestion device, detection device, and the piezoelectric element. Claim 10 recites that the ingestion device includes an IC configured to control the piezoelectric element, while the parent claim 8 describes the piezoelectric element as part of the signal transmission unit recited in the system context. Under dependency, it is unclear what piezoelectric element the ingestion-device IC is controlling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 12 are allowable over the prior art of record, including the prior art of record of Arneson, Krill and Foster as set forth in the Non-Final rejection mailed 8/22/2025. The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or fairly suggest, both singly and in combination measuring a time from when the ingestion device is extracted from the storage member to when the ingestion device is taken, and the associated hardware and configuration thereof to perform such measurement. While Foster teaches detecting the extraction of a device from a blister packet and Arneson teaches detecting an ingestion device within the body using ultrasonic signals, they do not measure a time from when the ingestion device is extracted from the storage member to when the ingestion device is taken based on information relating to the signal intensity of the reflected ultrasonic signal.
Claims 8 is allowable over the prior art of record, including the prior art of record of Arneson, Krill and Foster as set forth in the Non-Final rejection mailed 8/22/2025. The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or fairly suggest, both singly and in combination where when the PTP is opened to extract the ingestion device, a supply of power to the secondary battery is stopped, such that a voltage of the secondary battery decreases. Arneson, Krill and Foster do teach decreasing the voltage of a second battery upon extraction of the ingestion device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791