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 1-4 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1 and 2, in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 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)). In view of the prior art, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
4. Claims 1-4 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Step 6 of the “Die Wan manufacturing process,” ends in a period. However, this period should be removed because it is not the end of the claim.
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 1-4 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.
5. Claims 1 and 2 are indefinite because the structural requirements of the claims are unclear. The first line of the claims state that they are drawn to a “medicine compound preparation” which contains three parts, a detoxification preparation, a “Fukang” preparation, and a “dryness removing” and pain relieving preparation. However, it is unclear if these three preparations are mixed together to form a single preparation as indicated in the first line of the claim. If the separate preparations are combined into a single preparation, this needs to be stated. If the three preparations are kept separate, it would be more appropriate to claim a “kit” type claim rather than state that the claims are drawn to “a preparation.”
Claims 1 and 2 are also indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “traditional Chinese”. It is unclear what characteristics the preparations must have in order to be considered “traditional.” In addition, it is unclear what limitations are encompassed by “Chinese.” It is unclear if this means that the ingredients must be grown in China.
In addition, the claims are indefinite because it unclear what is meant by “pure” herbs. It is unclear what characteristics the herbs must contain in order to be considered “pure.”
Furthermore, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “Fukang” and “dryness-removing.”
6. Claims 3 and 4 are indefinite because they state that it is drawn to a “medicine compound preparation” which implies a single composition; however, the claims then state that each of the detoxification, Fukang, and dryness-removing and pain-relieving preparations are separately prepared and do not appear to be combined. Thus, the structural requirements of the claims are unclear.
Claims 3 and 4 are also indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “traditional Chinese”. It is unclear what characteristics the preparations must have in order to be considered “traditional.” In addition, it is unclear what limitations are encompassed by “Chinese.” It is unclear if this means that the ingredients must be grown in China.
In addition, the claims are indefinite because it unclear what is meant by “pure” herbs. It is unclear what characteristics the herbs must contain in order to be considered “pure.”
Furthermore, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “Fukang” and “dryness-removing.”
In addition, it is unclear what is meant by the “Die Wan manufacturing process.”
7. In claim 3, in step 1 of the “Die Wan manufacturing process,” it is unclear what characteristics are considered to be to be encompassed by “carefully” inspecting and drug “quality.”
In claim 3, in step 2 of the “Die Wan manufacturing process,” the phrase “sorting out the Chinese herbal medicines to be crushed” is unclear. It is unclear which of the herbal medicines are included and it is unclear what these medicines are “sorted out” from. In addition, it is unclear what is encompassed by “dry according to ‘different requirements’ ”. It is unclear what these “different requirements” might be.
In claim 3, step 4 of the “Die Wan manufacturing process,” is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This step is very difficult to follow and it is unclear what steps must be carried out and ingredients are used. Clarification is needed. Specifically, unclear phrases include:
“the size of the ready-made medicine, “preparing a certain amount of medicine,” “small amount of medicine powder” (what sizes are considered “small”?), “the sugar coated pan” (lacks antecedent basis), “starting the pan”, “the rotation of the pan” (lacks antecedent basis), “stopping the water” (lacks of antecedent basis), “so that the medicine becomes fine particles”, “the medicinal pills” (lacks of antecedent basis), “the pot” (lacks of antecedent basis), putting “it” (unclear what “it” refers to), “the medicinal base” (lacks of antecedent basis and unclear what ingredients are in the base material), “the remaining materials from the preparation of medicinal base” (lacks of antecedent basis), “small water paste”, “for honey pills”, dissolving “it” for later use (unclear what “it” refers to), “slurry” (it is unclear what is considered “slurry”), “in this way”, and “appreciable.”
In claim 3, in step 5 of the “Die Wan manufacturing process,” there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the stacked pills”.
In claim 3, in step 1 of the capsule manufacturing process, it is unclear what characteristics are considered to be to be encompassed by “carefully” inspecting and drug “quality.”
In claim 3, in step 2 of the capsule manufacturing process, the phrase “sorting out the Chinese herbal medicines to be crushed” is unclear. It is unclear which of the herbal medicines are included and it is unclear what these medicines are “sorted out” from. In addition, it is unclear what is encompassed by “dry according to ‘different requirements’ ”. It is unclear what these “different requirements” might be.
In claim 3, in step 4 of the capsule manufacturing process, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the capsule filling machine” and “the ‘0’ capsule”.
Conclusion
9. Although unclear as drafted, the claims appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art is Du (CN 1077796 C – English translation) which is drawn to a composition which contains Radix Panacis Quinquefolii: 50-70g, Rhizoma Gastrodiae: 30-35g, Rhizoma Corydalis: 30-35g, Radix Aconiti Lateralis Preparata: 5-10g, Pericarpium Papaveris: 60-70g, Semen Ziziphi Spinosae (parched): 25-30g, Cortex Phellodendri, Rhizoma Coptidis each: 40-45g, Rhizoma Cimicifugae: the 30-40g Radix Astragali: 30-40g Radix Glycyrrhizae Preparata: 30-35g, and Radix Aucklandiae: 25-30g (see translation). This composition overlaps with the claimed detoxification and Fukang preparations. However, the reference does not teach all of the claimed ingredients. Thus, the reference does not anticipate the claimed invention. In addition, there is not considered to be sufficient motivation in the prior art to add the additional ingredients claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan Coe Hoffman whose telephone number is (571)272-0963. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Terry McKelvey can be reached at 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