Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/587,392

THE DIP DOSAGE CALCULATOR

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
HANDY, DWAYNE K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
The Dip App Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
472 granted / 753 resolved
+2.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 753 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 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. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method of processing pool care information, comprising: receiving an input indicating a condition associated with water of a swimming pool, the condition having an impact on balancing a water chemistry of the water; computing, based on the input, a current water chemistry of the water of the swimming pool; determining a target water chemistry for the water of the swimming pool, the target water chemistry being different from the current water chemistry; and outputting, by a processing device, a pool care recommendation for the balancing the water chemistry of the water from the current water chemistry to the target water chemistry, the pool care recommendation being based on how the condition impacts the balancing the water chemistry. Claim 11 recites an apparatus for processing pool care information. The apparatus is comprised of a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform the steps recited in the method of claim 1. Claim 20 recites a computer readable medium storing computer executable code, the code when executed by at least one processor causes the processor to perform the steps recited in the method of claim 1. The Examiner submits the claims (method, apparatus, and computer readable medium) are directed to an abstract idea that is a mental process performed by a computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 – The Examiner submits the steps highlighted in Paragraph 5 above amount to a mental process. With respect to the method, the Examiner submits the computing and outputting steps explicitly recite use of a computer or processor with respect to the mental process. With respect to the apparatus and computer readable medium, the Examiner submits the claims recite the memory, processor and medium for performing the mental process. The step of “receiving the input indicating a condition” can be defined as data gathering. Such data gathering steps amount to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The steps of computing, determining and outputting with the processor amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Regarding claims 2, 10, 12 and 19 – Claims 2, 10, 12 and 19 additionally recite “wherein the condition…” which is a limitation directed to the receiving step. Therefore, the conditions are directed to data gathering. Such data gathering steps amount to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13 – Claims 3, 4, and 13 additionally recite “wherein the pool care recommendation” which is a result of the receiving, computing and determining steps. As previously noted, the receiving step can be defined as data gathering. Such data gathering steps amount to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The steps of computing, determining and outputting with the processor amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claims 5 and 14 – Claims 5 and 14 additionally recite “storing, in a database, a value of the current water chemistry computed based on the input, the value of the current water chemistry being added to historical water chemistry data in the database. The Examiner submits the storing step amounts to data gathering. Such data gathering steps amount to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The step of computing a value of the current water chemistry with the processor amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claims 6 and 15 – Claims 6 and 15 recite “wherein the determining the target water chemistry for the water of the swimming pool is based on at least one of: an indicated water chemistry preference or historical pool care behavior”. The Examiner submits the determining step done with the processor amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 – Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 recite “generating a notification based on the pool care recommendation” (claim 7 and 16) and “outputting the pool care recommendation” (claims 9 and 18). The Examiner submits the generating and outputting steps done with the processor amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding claims 8 and 17 – Claims 8 and 17 recite “receiving, from a third-party computing device, a service notification indicating”. The Examiner submits the receiving step done with the computing device amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yizhack et al. (US 2020/0148552. Yizhack teaches a system for monitoring and maintaining water and equipment in swimming pools. The system is shown in general in Figures 1-3 and 8-12; and described in Paragraphs 0004-0072 and 0087-0372. Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 – Yizhack recites a method of processing pool care information in general in Figures 9-12 and Paragraphs 0004-0072, the method includes the following steps: receiving an input indicating a condition associated with water of a swimming pool (see Paragraphs 005-0017 and 0028-0032), the condition having an impact on balancing a water chemistry of the water; computing, based on the input, a current water chemistry of the water of the swimming pool (see Paragraphs 0238-0264 and 0315-0336); determining a target water chemistry for the water of the swimming pool, the target water chemistry being different from the current water chemistry; and outputting, by a processing device, a pool care recommendation for the balancing the water chemistry of the water from the current water chemistry to the target water chemistry, the pool care recommendation being based on how the condition impacts the balancing the water chemistry (Paragraphs 0354-0367). With respect to the apparatus and readable medium claims, Yizhack teaches “[0052] a local processing unit monitoring and accumulating data from: [0053] elements including at least one of sensors, actuators, and breakers in and around the vicinity of the swimming pools, [0054] non-sensory data from a plurality of sources, and [0055] an online server, said online server receiving said data from said local processing unit, applying machine learning algorithms to incorporate said acquired data and obtain an optimal policy for pool maintenance, and providing an online interface for at least one of pool owners, pool servicemen, pool maintenance companies, pool vendors and pool retail dealers.” Yizhack also teaches a cloud server in Paragraphs 0139-0151, 0182, 0209-0210, 0224-0230, 0257-0263, and 0283-0370. Regarding claims 2 and 12 – Yizhack teaches inputting the conditions of historical pool care data to impact water chemistry determination in Paragraphs 0146-0148, 0220-0230. Yizhack teaches inputting and using weather information conditions to impact water chemistry determination in Paragraphs 0041-0048, 0198-0209, and 0304-0310. Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 13 and 15 – Yizhack discloses a chemical dosing recommendation to balance the water chemistry based on received input and other data such as chemical and historical preference in Paragraphs 0064-0069 and 0351-0371 and Figure 11. Yizhack further discloses an amount of time to wait before swimming in Figure 13 and Paragraphs 0071, 0356-0365. Regarding claims 5 and 14 – Yizhack teaches forming and using a database of pool statistics in a cloud server (1200) in Paragraphs 0038, 0061, 0220, 0328, and 0337-0339; Figure 9; and also in claims 2 and 11. Regarding claims 7 and 16 – Yizhack recites generating a notification based on the pool care recommendation in Paragraphs 0058-0062, 0132-0137, 0209-0215, 0224-0230; 0351-0359; Figures 3A and 13; and also claims 2 and 11. Regarding claims 8 and 17 – Yizhack teaches receiving notifications and recommendations from third party computer services such as pool vendors, pool servicemen and pool maintenance companies in Paragraphs 0028-0047, 0056-0062, and 0139-0145; and also Figures 3A-3B Regarding claims 9 and 18 – Yizhack discloses predictive modeling of the water chemistry and providing a pool care recommendation in 0046-0049, 0146-0151, and 0351-0359; and also Figure 11. Regarding claims 10 and 19 – Yizhack discloses pool care recommendations based on conditions such as weather, environment and location in Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0044-0049, 0068-0071, 0110-0114, and 0199-0208; and also claims 4, 7 and 13. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM. 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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. /DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 July 23, 2026 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667840
Device And Method For Accelerated Material Extraction And Detection
1y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12624325
SINGLE-USE CONTAINER WITH 3D PRINTED FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT, PRINTING METHOD THEREFOR AND ASSEMBLY
5y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12616973
METHODS, DEVICES, AND RELATED ASPECTS FOR COLLECTING AND STORING SAMPLES
5y 2m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12611202
Test Barrel
4y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12613242
DIAGNOSTIC ASSAY DEVICE HAVING MICROREACTOR
1y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+24.9%)
3y 7m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 753 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month