Matter name: Adaptive infusion controller patent filing review
Run type: draft filing review
Decision to support: Is the current draft ready for a stronger attorney review pass?

Primary review questions:
1. Where are the strongest ambiguity or support gaps in the claims?
2. Are there claim terms that are broader than the specification really supports?
3. What missing inputs would most improve filing quality?

Jurisdiction:
United States first filing draft.

Application type:
Utility application draft.

Working title:
Adaptive infusion controller for dynamic dose adjustment using patient-state signals.

One-sentence invention summary:
The system adjusts infusion delivery based on continuously updated patient-state indicators and a rule engine that modifies dosage within defined safety ranges.

Problem addressed:
Static dose schedules can lag behind rapidly changing patient conditions, especially where response signals move faster than manual intervention cycles.

Proposed solution:
Use a controller that ingests patient-state signals, applies rule-based or model-based adjustment logic, and updates infusion delivery within bounded parameters.

Claimed novelty:
The draft claims novelty in combining continuous state monitoring, bounded dosage adjustment logic, and event-triggered safety override behavior in a single adaptive control process.

Patent text included:
- title
- abstract
- background
- summary
- detailed description
- figures
- claims

Independent claims in scope:
- method claim for adaptive dosing control
- system claim for controller architecture

Claim architecture notes:
- "patient-state indicator" is broad and may cover multiple sensor types
- "adjustment engine" is used in the claims but the specification also uses "rule module" and "control logic"
- some dependent claims introduce fallback behaviors that are only thinly described

Known terminology issues:
- adjustment engine / control logic / rule module appear to overlap
- safety override and emergency condition logic may not be consistently defined

Claim-support concerns:
- broad signal ingestion language may exceed the concrete examples in the description
- the safety-boundary logic is discussed conceptually but not always in claim-matching language
- the system claim may assume interface details not clearly shown in the figures

Prior art references included:
- two prior patents on infusion pumps with state monitoring
- one publication on rule-based dosage adjustment

Known weak spots:
- breadth may be outrunning support
- terminology may drift across sections
- invalidation boundary between ordinary pump safety logic and the claimed adaptive controller may not be sharp enough

Missing information:
- cleaner claim-to-paragraph support map
- stronger prior-art comparison table
- clearer fallback embodiment language

What a useful AXIOM output should focus on:
- ambiguity in claim language
- support gaps between claims and specification
- overbreadth signals
- missing inputs before a more serious legal review