DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Election/Restrictions 3. Applicant's election with traverse of Group V in the reply filed on July 22, 2025 is acknowledged. In view of the prior art, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Claim Objections Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Guduchisattva” should be “Guduchi sattva”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim s 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Arkadugdha” should be “Arka dugdha”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period and also contains periods in the body of the claim, specifically at the end of each of steps A-D. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Although unclear as drafted for the reasons discussed below , applicant’s claims appear to be a combination of known Ayurvedic compositions . Specifically: - Deshmukh (Support Care Cancer (2014), vol. 22, no. 1, 9 pages) teaches both Mouktikyukta Kamdudha and Suvarna Bhasmadi (see abstract and page 7). - Hebbar 1 (“T railokya Chintamani Rasa Ingredients, Dose, Uses, Side effects .” accessed at https://ayurmedinfo.com/2019/03/02/trailokya-chintamani-rasa/ - reference date March 2, 2019) teaches T railokya Chintamani Rasa with ingredients that appear to significantly overlap with those claimed by applicant. - Hebbar 2 (“Khadirarishta Uses, Side Effects, Ingredients and Dose.” accessed at https://ayurmedinfo.com/2011/07/01/khadirarishta-uses-side-effects-ingredients-and-dose/ - reference date July 1, 2011) teaches Khadirarishta with ingredients that appear to overlap with those claimed by applicant. - “Therapeutic Index” (accessed at https://ayurvedarasashala.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Therapeutic.pdf - reference date December 2011) teaches Kumari Kalpa but appears to teach that this composition has distinct ingredients than those claimed by applicant (see page 4). T he extensive use of foreign language terms in the claims make it unclear what ingredients are actually required in applicant’s claims and how these compositions may differ from the known compositions. If applicant’s claims are directed to variations of known compositions, applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose any knowledge related to patentability. It also must be noted that the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority was issued by the Indian Patent Office. It is reasonable to assume that the Indian Patent Office would have a clearer understanding of the foreign language terms used in the claims, and the Indian Patent Office states that the claims are directed to a combination of formulations known in Indian Traditional Medicine. If applicant is attempting to redefine known compositions, the specification must clearly set forth the new definitions. In this case, the specification is unclear for the reasons discussed below. Note that MPEP section 2173.05(a- III) states that “ applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms (emphasis added) . ” 4. In regards to claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1, at items a, b, c, and d, recites the broad recitation “in solid dosages form”, and the claim also recites that the ingredients are “Vati” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation because “Vati” is defined as a tablet in the specification (see page 4, lines 26 and 27). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 1 is also indefinite because it states that each of the containers contain the various compositions in amounts per day. An amount per day is an administration limitation rather than a structural limitation placed on the compositions themselves. Thus, it is unclear if the claim is meant to recite an intended use or if the claimed amounts are structural requirements of the various compositions. Claim 1 is also indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Trailokyachintamani Rasa ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 4 state that this composition contains “Shuddha Hartaal , ” “Arka dugdha”, “Nirgundi”, “Snuhi Kshir”, “Chitrak”, “ Shuddha Kapardik ”, “ Shigruin ”, “Nimbuk” , “Shuddha Vatsanabh” , and “S untha ” . Please see paragraph 6 below for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. Claim 1 is also indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Kumari Kalpa ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 5 state that this composition contains “Shunthi” , “Bhumiamalaki” , “Musta” , “Vidang” , and “ Kumari ” . Please see paragraph 7 below for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. Claim 1 is also indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Khadirarishta ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 6 state that this composition contains “Khadir” , “Darunharidra” , and a “natural inoculum” of Dhataki flowers . Please see paragraph 8 below for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. 5. Claims 2-6 are indefinite because it states that the compositions are “prepared from” the listed ingredients. However, the use of “prepared from” to describe a composition is confusing because it unclear if the listed ingredients are required or if other ingredients that can be derived from these ingredient can be included in their place . Additionally, “prepared from” could imply that the claims are product-by-process claims; however, no process steps are included. Thus, the actual scope of the claims are unclear. 6. Claim 4 is indefinite because it appears to conflict with claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the Trailokyachintamani Rasa is “Vati” which is defined as a tablet. However, claim 4 states that the various ingredients are powders and liquids and does not specifically state that the ingredients are combined and formulated into a tablet. In addition, claim 4 is confusing in that it refers to a “first powder,” “first liquid,” “second powder,” etc. By referring to each of these separately, it appears to be implying that they are not combined together. Thus, the overall structural requirements of the claim are unclear. In addition, claim 4 is indefinite because the claim requires the ingredients in percentages that amount to over 100%. For example, the “second liquid” requires at least 54.5% of four ingredients. This is a concentration of over 200% and does not allow for the inclusion of the other required ingredients. Claim 4 is also indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “Shuddha Hartaal.” The specification states that this ingredient is “processed orpiment”. However, it is unclear what is meant by “orpiment.” Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Arka dugdha.” The specification states that this ingredient is latex from Calotropis procera or “related species” (see page 4). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Nirgundi”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Vitex negundo or “related species” (see page 4). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 4 is indefinite because “Snuhi Kshir” is not defined. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Chitrak”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Plumbago zeylanica or “related species” (see page 4). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 4 is indefinite because “ Shuddha Kapardik ” is not defined. Claim 4 is indefinite because “ Shigruin ” is not defined. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Nimbuk”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Citrus limon or “related species” (see page 4). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Shuddha Vatsanabh”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Aconitum ferox or “related species” (see page 3 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 4 is indefinite because “S untha ” is not defined. 7. Claim 5 is indefinite because it appears to conflict with claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the Kumari Kalpa is “Vati” which is defined as a tablet. However, claim 5 states that the various ingredients are powders and liquids and does not specifically state that the ingredients are combined and formulated into a tablet. Claim 5 is indefinite because “ Shunthi ” is not defined. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “Bhumiamalaki” . The specification states that this ingredient is from Phyllanthus niruri or “related species” (see page 3 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “ Musta ”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Cyperus rotundus or “related species” (see page 4 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “ Vidang ”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Embelia ribes or “related species” (see page 3). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “ Kumari ”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Aloe vera or A. barbadensis or “related species” (see page 4 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. 8. Claim 6 is indefinite because it appears to conflict with claim 1. Claim 1 requires the Khadirarishta to be in liquid form. However, the ingredients listed in claim 6 are powdered and no liquid is specifically required. Claim 6 is also indefinite because it states that it is drawn to a “first powder” and a “second powder”, Jaggery and Dhataki flowers. Referring to the ingredients as separate formulations is indefinite. The claim does not state that these ingredients are combined. Thus, the actual structural requirements of claim 6 are unclear. Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “ Khadir ”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Acacia catechu or “related species” (see page 4 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “ Darunharidra ”. The specification states that this ingredient is from Berberis aristata or “related species” (see page 5 ). However, the specification does not state which species are considered to be “related.” Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the limitation that the Dhataki flowers are present as a “natural inoculum”. The specification does not define this phrase. 9. Claim 7 is indefinite because it states that it is drawn to a process for preparing a kit. However, the claim does not contain steps where the kit is assembled. The claim describes how each component is formulated, but the claim does not state that the individual components of the kit are packaged together to obtain the kit itself. Thus, claim 7 is improper because it is missing key step in the creation of the kit. In addition , claim 7 recites the broad recitation FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT "solid dosage form" at steps A, B, C, and D , and the claim also recites “Vati” at these steps which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation because “Vati” is defined as tablet in the specification. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 7, step C, is also indefinite because the identity of “Shuddha Hartaal,” “Arka dugdha”, “Nirgundi”, “Snuhi Kshir”, “Chitrak”, “ Shuddha Kapardik ”, “ Shigruin ”, “Nimbuk”, “Shuddha Vatsanabh” , and “S untha ” . Please see paragraph 6 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. Claim 7, step D, is also indefinite because the identity of “Shunthi” , “Bhumiamalaki” , “Musta” , “Vidang” , and “ Kumari ”. Please see paragraph 7 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. Claim 7, step E, is also indefinite because the identity of “Khadir” , “Darunharidra” , and a “natural inoculum” of Dhataki flowers . Please see paragraph 8 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. 10. Claim 8 is indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Trailokyachintamani Rasa ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 4 state that this composition contains “Shuddha Hartaal,” “Arka dugdha”, “Nirgundi”, “Snuhi Kshir”, “Chitrak”, “ Shuddha Kapardik ”, “ Shigruin ”, “Nimbuk”, “Shuddha Vatsanabh” , and “S untha ” . Please see paragraph 6 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. Claim 8 is also indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Kumari Kalpa ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 5 state that this composition contains “Shunthi” , “Bhumiamalaki” , “Musta” , “Vidang” , and “ Kumari ”. Please see paragraph 7 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. 11. Claim 9 is indefinite because the identity of all of these ingredients in the “ Khadirarishta ” composition are unclear. The specification and claim 6 state that this composition contains “Khadir” , “Darunharidra” , and a “natural inoculum” of Dhataki flowers . Please see paragraph 8 above for the reasons why these ingredients are considered to be indefinite. 12. Claim 10 recites the limitation "said second excipient,” “said third excipient, and “said fourth excipient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 2 which only provides antecedent basis for “said first excipient.” 13. Claim 11 recites the limitation "said first excipient,” “said third excipient, and “said fourth excipient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 3 which only provides antecedent basis for “said second excipient.” 14. Claim 12 recites the limitation "said first excipient,” “said second excipient, and “said fourth excipient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 4 which only provides antecedent basis for “said second excipient.” 15. Claim 13 recites the limitation "said first excipient,” “said second excipient, and “said third excipient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 5 which only provides antecedent basis for “said fourth excipient.” The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 states that the solid dosage forms are tablets, pill, or capsules. However, parent claim | 1 requires the solid compositions to be in “Vati” form. The specification defines “Vati” as a tablet. Thus, claim 8 is broader in scope because it does not require a tablet formulation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 17. Claim (s) 1 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshmukh (Support Care Cancer (2014), vol. 22, no. 1, 9 pages) , Hebbar 1 (“T railokya Chintamani Rasa Ingredients, Dose, Uses, Side effects .” accessed at https://ayurmedinfo.com/2019/03/02/trailokya-chintamani-rasa/ - reference date March 2, 2019) , Hebbar 2 (“Khadirarishta Uses, Side Effects, Ingredients and Dose.” accessed at https://ayurmedinfo.com/2011/07/01/khadirarishta-uses-side-effects-ingredients-and-dose/ - reference date July 1, 2011) , “Therapeutic Index” (accessed at https://ayurvedarasashala.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Therapeutic.pdf - reference date December 2011) and “ The Basic First Aid Kit Every Home Should Have ” (accessed at https://www.marywashingtonhealthcare.com/news/2018/february/the-basic-first-aid-kit-every-home-should-have/ - reference date February 1, 2018) . Deshmukh teaches that both Mouktikyukta Kamdudha and Suvarna Bhasmadi were known to have beneficial health effects such as treating nausea, improving digestion, and treating diarrhea (see abstract and page 7). Hebbar 1 teaches Trailokya Chintamani Rasa was known to have beneficial health effects such as improving digestion and treating cough . Hebbar 2 teaches Khadirarishta was known to have beneficial health effects such as treating cough and fungal and bacterial infections . The “Therapeutic Index” reference teaches Kumari Kalpa has beneficial health effects for treating chronic cough (see page 4). Packaging these known compositions into a single “kit” is akin to creating a first aid kit. Assembling first aid kits is a routine practice in the art that the an artisan would be motivated to employ. For example, the First Aid Kit reference teaches that a first aid kit should contain antibiotics , antiseptic s, cough medicines, and digestive aids such as antiacids and antidiarrheals . The references demonstrate that each of the components of claim 1 were known in the art at the time of the invention to be useful for the treatment of ailments that would make them useful in a first aid kit. Hebbar 1 teaches Trailokya Chintamani Rasa was known to have beneficial health effects such as improving digestion and treating cough . Hebbar 2 teaches that Khadirarishta treats bacterial and fungal infection. The Therapeutic Index reference teaches that Kumari Kalpa treats cough. Deshmukh teaches using Mouktikyukta Kamdudha and Suvarna Bhasmadi for treating nausea, improving digestion, and treating diarrhea . Thus, the placement of well known Ayurvedic compositions into a single kit to create a kit such as that suggested by the First Aid Kit reference is not considered to be inventive but rather an obvious modification of what was known in the art . The references do not specifically teach formulating the compositions into all of the formulations using all of the carriers claimed. However, each of these are well known to employ in the pharmaceutical arts. Thus, the artisan would be motivated to formulate the known Ayurvedic compositions into known formulations using known carriers. Therefore, the claims are considered to be an obvious modification of what was known in the art at the time of the invention. The references do not teach the same use as claimed. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. 17. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Susan Coe Hoffman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0963 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8:30am - 3:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Terry McKelvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0775 . 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. /SUSAN HOFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655