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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-9 and 16-19) in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 9, 16-19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, “a user” should be amended to “the user” since claim 1 recites “a user”. Changes should be made for claims 4-6, 9, 16-19.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-19 is/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 phrase "drug administration information" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “drug administration information” previously recited in lines 2-3 of claim 1.
Claims 2-9 and 16-19 are rejected by virtue of depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loo (US 2020/0069882).
Regarding claim 1, Loo discloses
A drug administration management system (100, figs. 1-5 and pars. 0023-0047) comprising:
a smart case (110, fig. 1) configured to accommodate a drug administration device, display drug administration information including whether or not a drug is administered and a drug administration dose for each drug administration site input button based on an input of a user, and transmit the drug administration information externally (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to accommodate…, display…, and transmit…” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitations “a drug administration device”, “drug administration information”, “a drug”, “a drug administration dose”, “each drug administration site input button”, and “an input of a user” are not positively recited in claim 1. As shown in fig. 1 and par. 0034, case 110 comprises a through hole 112 adapted for device 10 passing through, case 110 comprises a display screen 160 for the user to view the information, and case 110 comprises a wireless communication module 170 to transmit information to an external device. Therefore, case 110 reads on the functional limitations of accommodating, displaying, and transmitting); and
a terminal (external device such as user’s mobile phone, computer or cloud system disclosed in par. 0034) configured to receive the externally transmitted drug administration information from the smart case, and monitor the drug administration information based on a drug administration plan input from a user (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to receive…, and monitor…” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitations “drug administration information” and “a drug administration plan input from a user” are not positively recited in claim 1. See par. 0034 for the information being transmitted to an external device. Therefore, the external device reads on the functional limitations of receiving and monitoring).
Regarding claim 2, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal (external device disclosed in par. 0034) is configured to set the drug administration plan including a drug administration date and a drug administration time of a user based on a user input set the drug administration dose and the drug administration site of a user, and transmit a set value related to the drug administration dose and the drug administration site of a user to the smart case (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to set… and transmit…” is interpreted as functional limitation, and the limitations “the drug administration plan”, “a drug administration date”, “a drug administration time”, “a user input”, “the drug administration dose”, “the drug administration site”, “a set value” are not positively recited in claim 2. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 2, wherein the terminal is configured to store at least one of: (i) the drug administration information received from the smart case, and (ii) a drug administration information obtained based on the user input (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to store…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 3, wherein the terminal is configured to compare a preset drug administration plan with the drug administration information received from the smart case or the drug administration information obtained based on the user input, and monitor at least one of: (i) whether or not a drug administration of a user is complete and (ii) a drug administration rate (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to compare…, and monitor…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 4, wherein the terminal is configured to classify and monitor at least one of (i) whether or not the drug administration of a user is complete and (ii)the drug administration rate for each drug administration site of a user (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to classify and monitor…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 1, wherein the drug administration device is configured to administer growth hormone (Examiner notes: the limitation “the drug administration device” is not positively recited in claim 1 as well as claim 6. See figs. 1-2 for the device 10), and wherein the terminal is configured to monitor a change in growth record data including at least one of a height and weight of a user according to the administration of the growth hormone (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to monitor…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 1,wherein the smart case is configured to automatically transmit the drug administration information stored in the smart case to the terminal by performing synchronization with the terminal when the smart case is turned on (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to automatically transmit…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See fig. 3 and par. 0034 for case 110 comprising a wireless communication module 170 electrically connected to the circuit board module 120, which is capable of performing the functional limitation), and wherein the terminal is configured to transmit a transmission confirmation code including date data to the smart case (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to transmit…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0034 for the external device being user’s mobile phone or computer which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 7, wherein the smart case is configured to receive and store the transmission confirmation code including the date data from the terminal, and delete the drug administration information previously transmitted to the terminal (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to receive and store…, and delete…” is interpreted as functional limitation. The limitations “the transmission confirmation code” and “the date data”, and “the drug administration information” are not positively recited in claim 8. See fig. 3 and pars. 0028 and 0045 for case 110 comprising a storage 124, which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Loo discloses
The drug administration management system according to claim 1, wherein the smart case (110) includes an input unit (130/132) configured to receive the input from a user (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to receive…” is interpreted as functional limitation. When the user sets a dose and/or delivers the dose, the value on the dial gauge changes and/or the position of the press button changes. 130/132 detects the changes, see par. 0029), a display unit (160) configured to display the drug administration information based on the input from a user (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to display…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See par. 0033 for the display unit 160 displaying indication data), and a transceiver (170) configured to transmit the drug administration information to the terminal (Examiner notes: the limitation “configured to transmit…” is interpreted as functional limitation. See fig. 3 and par. 0034 for a wireless communication module 170 configured to transmit information to an external device, which is capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T ULSH whose telephone number is (571)272-9894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/DUNG T ULSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights