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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 23, in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because independent claims 1, 8, and 23 only recite a method, an apparatus, and a generic computer program in a computer readable storage medium, respectively, as the meaningful limitations for the application of the abstract ideas being claimed. The method of claim 1 only amounts to implementing the mental process on a generic electronic device. The apparatus of claim 8 generically recites a memory and processor as components of an electronic device, but does not add meaningful limitations as the claim still only amounts to implementing a mental process on an electronic device. Likewise, the computer program in a computer readable storage medium of claim 23 does not add meaningful limitations as the claim still only amounts to implementing a mental process on a computer readable storage medium. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no particular treatment or prophylaxis is recited, when considering the claims as a whole and the additional elements in combination. The high level of generality in the independent claims does not serve to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as a result of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim of “computer readable storage medium” is directed to a signal per se, with scope encompassing statutory and non-statutory embodiments [See MPEP 2106.03(II)].
Regarding independent claim 23, the Office recommends amending the language to recite “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” in order to more clearly claim a patent eligible category of subject matter.
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 1-15 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, Applicant discloses: “the second dosage form composition information is calculated by reflecting the second current condition information to the dose value of the base dose information used when calculating the first composition information” (emphasis added). It is not clear what Applicant is claiming. How is the information reflected “to the dose value” as claimed.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant discloses: “a dose value” on line 16 and “a dose value” on line 23. Are these different components? If so, then a further distinguishing limitation is necessary. If not, then line 23 should be –the dose value-- or –said dose value--.
Claims 9-15 depend from claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
7/21/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights