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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on (5 – 22 – 2026) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (5 – 22 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Son et al. (US 20150197655 A1, hereinafter Son) / Son as modified does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of wherein the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C, and wherein the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Son / Son as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As noted below, Son teaches in (Claim 1) an aqueous composition for preparing a hard capsule, the aqueous composition comprising: a water-soluble cellulose ether; an alcohol; and water. Highlighting, that the implementation of a gelling agent in the composition is not noted. Consequently, the capsule forming composition is free of a gelling agent. Namely, the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent. Highlighting, while applicant may point to (Claim 5) that notes implementing an gelation agent. ([0021]) notes that the composition may further include the gelation agent. As such, the gelation agent is understood to be an optional constituent in the composition. ([0048]) notes that adding the gelation agent may impact the viscosity of the first composition by appropriately increasing and thus the hard capsule formed from the composition may have increased elongation at break and decreased brittleness. As such, implementation and tailoring the amount of the gelation agent (including being absent i.e, 0) is understood to impact and tailor the viscosity of the first composition and consequently influence the increased elongation at break and decreased brittleness of the capsule formed from the capsule forming composition. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the implementation and or absence of a gelling agent in the capsule forming composition. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Furthermore, as detailed in the previous action and below, Son / Son as modified is (still) found to teach the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. The composition are understood to have the same properties, namely by providing a ratio of HPMC:CNC being between 4:1 to 7:3, and a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water provides for a composition in which the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C. Accordingly, due to the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C being functional properties of the composition and as noted Son as modified by Bakeev comprise the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Son / Son as modified. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Highlighting, that claim 1 and claim 22 include negative limitations, specifically, wherein the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent and wherein the solvent solution does not include ethanol, respectively. Currently, the disclosure lacks support for these negative limitation. Highlighting, that while ([0028] – [0032]) discuss the addition of gelling agents. However, the original specifications as filed does not expressly disclose the compositions excluding gelling agents, nor does the specification describe the absence of gelling agents as a feature of the invention. Similarly, ([0034] – [0036]) describe a solvent system including water and shear thinning additives including alcohols. However, the original specifications as filed does not expressly disclose the compositions excluding ethanol, nor does the specification describe the absence of ethanol as a feature of the invention
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1 & 22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20150197655 A1, hereinafter Son) and in further view of Bakeev et al. (US 20130178539 A1, hereinafter Bakeev)Regarding claim 1,
A capsule forming composition, for manufacturing a capsule for use in a vaporizer, the capsule forming composition comprising a mixture of:
hydroxypropyl-methyl cellulose (HPMC); and
cellulose nanocrystals (CNC),
a ratio of HPMC:CNC being between 4:1 to 7:3,
the mixture dissolved in a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water,
wherein the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and,
when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C, and
wherein the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent.
Son teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that disclosed are an aqueous composition for preparing a hard capsule, a preparation method therefor, a hard capsule, and a method for recycling hard capsule scraps.
([0019]) teaches that an aqueous composition may include water-soluble cellulose ether, and alcohol. The water-soluble cellulose ether may include hydroxypropyl methylcellulose(HPMC), hydroxyethyl methylcellulose(HEMC), methylcellulose(MC), or a mixture of two or more of these.
([0020]) teaches that the alcohol may include ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol, or a mixture of two or more of these. As such, the use of only isopropanol is understood to be disclosed. With ([0095], Table 1) teaching various examples of HPMC, Ethanol and water. The range of ethanol to water provided being from Ethanol (20 – 5) to Water (60 – 75), respectively. As such, a ratio of 1:3 is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while only an example with ethanol is provided, one of ordinary skill in art would understand that substitution of ethanol for any of the alcohols listed above, including isopropanol would be nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, one may cite KSR case law for utilizing isopropanol in place of ethanol for the values prescribed in Table 1. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for close but not overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985 Furthermore, as detailed in ([0091] – [0096]) and (Table 1), the only variables changing in the examples provided are the ratio of alcohol to water. With (Table 1) giving the “appearance” of these various compositions, ([0091] – [0095]) giving various details of what the appearance symbols indicate. Namely, as the ratio of alcohol to water changes, the rate and ability of HMPC to dissolve is impacted. As the rate / ability of HPMC to dissolve changes, the appearance changes from clear and transparent to strongly hazy. Highlighting, the ratio of alcohol to water is understood to impact rate / ability of HPMC to dissolve and thus the appearance. Consequently, one would be motivated to optimize the ratio of alcohol to water to a desired value to achieve a particular appearance. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
(Claim 1) teaches an aqueous composition for preparing a hard capsule, the aqueous composition comprising: a water-soluble cellulose ether; an alcohol; and water. Highlighting, that the implementation of a gelling agent in the composition is not noted. Consequently, the capsule forming composition is free of a gelling agent. Namely, the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent. Highlighting, while applicant may point to (Claim 5) that notes implementing an gelation agent. ([0021]) notes that the composition may further include the gelation agent. As such, the gelation agent is understood to be an optional constituent in the composition. ([0048]) notes that adding the gelation agent may impact the viscosity of the first composition by appropriately increasing and thus the hard capsule formed from the composition may have increased elongation at break and decreased brittleness. As such, implementation and tailoring the amount of the gelation agent (including being absent i.e, 0) is understood to impact and tailor the viscosity of the first composition and consequently influence the increased elongation at break and decreased brittleness of the capsule formed from the capsule forming composition. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the implementation and or absence of a gelling agent in the capsule forming composition. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding Claim 1, Son teaches an aqueous composition comprising several types of cellulose, including hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), various types of alcohol and water. Son is silent on implementing a cellulose nanocrystals as a form of cellulose implemented, and the ratio between the various cellulose types implemented. In analogous art for a composition which can be used to form a body such as a drug capsule, the composition including a hydroxypropyl cellulose amongst other types of cellulose and a solvent including water and alcohols, Bakeev suggests details regarding types of cellulose that may be implemented and the ratio between the types of cellulose implemented, and in this regard Bakeev teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches that any thermal gelling water soluble cellulose ether can be used in the presently disclosed and claimed inventive concept(s). Examples of the thermal gelling cellulose ethers typically employed as binders can include, but are not limited to, methyl hydroxypropyl cellulose (MHPC).
([0031]) teaches that to further disperse and reduce the size of the cellulose crystals, the suspensions of cellulose crystals can be processed by either sonicating or passing through a high shear micro fluidizer. This kind of prepared material is referred to as nanocellulose, nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC), cellulose nanocrystals, cellulose nanofibers or cellulose whiskers.
([0034]) teaches that the ratio of nanocrystalline cellulose to thermally gelling cellulose ether can be varied depending upon the particular application. Generally, the composition can include up to about 70% by weight of the nanocrystalline cellulose to as low as about 10% or less nanocrystalline cellulose. ([0036]) teaches that the binder for capsule walls has a higher concentration of binder, generally 20 wt % or more, can be employed.
& f.) Due to Son as modified by Bakeev comprising the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. The composition are understood to have the same properties, namely by providing a ratio of HPMC:CNC being between 4:1 to 7:3, and a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water provides for a composition in which the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C. Accordingly, due to the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C being functional properties of the composition and as noted Son as modified by Bakeev comprise the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an aqueous composition for preparing a hard capsule, a preparation method therefor, a hard capsule of Son. By modifying and optimizing the type of cellulose utilized to include nanocrystalline cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose in an optimized ratio, as taught by Bakeev. Highlighting, implementation of nanocrystalline cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose in an optimized ratio provides a means for further dispersing via reducing the size of the cellulose, ([0031]) and provides a means for tailoring the gel strength of said composition, (Claim 1). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, the use of a known material, in particular, nanocrystalline cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose, in a known environment i.e., a cellulose blend, for its intended purposes, namely, to further disperse and reduce the size of the cellulose crystals, provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 22,
Wherein the solvent solution does not include ethanol.
Son teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that the alcohol may include ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol, or a mixture of two or more of these. As such, the use of only isopropanol is understood to be disclosed.
B.) Claim(s) 1 & 22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakeev in view of Son
Regarding claim 1,
A capsule forming composition, for manufacturing a capsule for use in a vaporizer, the capsule forming composition comprising a mixture of:
hydroxypropyl-methyl cellulose (HPMC); and
cellulose nanocrystals (CNC),
a ratio of HPMC:CNC being between 4:1 to 7:3,
the mixture dissolved in a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water,
wherein the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and,
when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C, and
wherein the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent.
Bakeev teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches an aqueous cellulose ether blend with improved thermal gel strength are formed by combining nanocrystalline cellulose with thermal gelling cellulose ethers. This blend can be used as a binder in a variety of different applications, such as food products and ceramic green bodies. It can also be used to form capsule shells for pharmaceuticals.
([0033]) teaches that any thermal gelling water soluble cellulose ether can be used in the presently disclosed and claimed inventive concept(s). Examples of the thermal gelling cellulose ethers typically employed as binders can include, but are not limited to, methyl hydroxypropyl cellulose (MHPC).
([0031]) teaches that to further disperse and reduce the size of the cellulose crystals, the suspensions of cellulose crystals can be processed by either sonicating or passing through a high shear micro fluidizer. This kind of prepared material is referred to as nanocellulose, nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC), cellulose nanocrystals, cellulose nanofibers or cellulose whiskers.
([0034]) teaches that the ratio of nanocrystalline cellulose to thermally gelling cellulose ether can be varied depending upon the particular application. Generally, the composition can include up to about 70% by weight of the nanocrystalline cellulose to as low as about 10% or less nanocrystalline cellulose. ([0036]) teaches that the binder for capsule walls has a higher concentration of binder, generally 20 wt % or more, can be employed.
(Claim 1) teaches a thermal gelling composition having improved high-temperature gel strength comprising: water soluble thermal gelling cellulose ether; nanocrystalline cellulose; and water. Highlighting, that the implementation of a gelling agent in the composition is not noted. Consequently, the capsule forming composition is free of a gelling agent. Namely, the capsule forming composition does not include a gelling agent.
Regarding Claim 1, Bakeev teaches an aqueous composition comprising several types of cellulose, including hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) and cellulose nanocrystals amongst others, in water. Bakeev is silent on implementing a solvent comprising a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water. In analogous art for a composition which can be used to form a body such as a drug capsule, the composition including a hydroxypropyl cellulose amongst other types of cellulose and a solvent including water and alcohols, (Abstract), Son suggests details regarding on implementing a solvent comprising a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water, and in this regard Son teaches the following:
([0019]) teaches that an aqueous composition may include water-soluble cellulose ether, and alcohol. The water-soluble cellulose ether may include hydroxypropyl methylcellulose(HPMC), hydroxyethyl methylcellulose(HEMC), methylcellulose(MC), or a mixture of two or more of these.
([0020]) teaches that the alcohol may include ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol, or a mixture of two or more of these. As such, the use of only isopropanol is understood to be disclosed. With ([0095], Table 1) teaching various examples of HPMC, Ethanol and water. The range of ethanol to water provided being from Ethanol (20 – 5) to Water (60 – 75), respectively. As such, a ratio of 1:3 is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while only an example with ethanol is provided, one of ordinary skill in art would understand that substitution of ethanol for any of the alcohols listed above, including isopropanol would be nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, one may cite KSR case law for utilizing isopropanol in place of ethanol for the values prescribed in Table 1. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for close but not overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985 Furthermore, as detailed in ([0091] – [0096]) & (Table 1), the only variables changing in the examples provided are the ratio of alcohol to water. With (Table 1) giving the “appearance” of these various compositions, ([0091] – [0095]) giving various details of what the appearance symbols indicate. Namely, as the ratio of alcohol to water changes, the rate and ability of HMPC to dissolve is impacted. As the rate / ability of HPMC to dissolve changes, the appearance changes from clear and transparent to strongly hazy. Highlighting, the ratio of alcohol to water is understood to impact rate / ability of HPMC to dissolve and thus the appearance. Consequently, one would be motivated to optimize the ratio of alcohol to water to a desired value to achieve a particular appearance. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
& f.) Due to Bakeev as modified by Son comprising the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. The composition are understood to have the same properties, namely by providing a ratio of HPMC:CNC being between 4:1 to 7:3, and a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water provides for a composition in which the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C. Accordingly, due to the mixture and the solvent solution are in proportions such that the capsule forming composition exhibits non-Newtonian fluid dynamics and, when cured, results in the capsule being biodegradable and able to withstand temperatures between 100 °C and 400 °C being functional properties of the composition and as noted Bakeev as modified by Son comprise the same capsule forming composition as that of applicant’s claimed composition. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an aqueous composition for preparing a hard capsule, a preparation method therefor, a hard capsule of Bakeev. By modifying and optimizing the type of solvent implemented to include a solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water, as taught by Son. Highlighting, implementation of an optimized solvent solution having a 1:2 ratio of isopropyl alcohol to water provides for tailoring various aspects of the hard capsule formed include the rate / ability of HPMC to dissolve changes and the “appearance” / transparency. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, the use of a known material, in particular, isopropyl alcohol with water, in a known environment i.e., a cellulose blend, for its intended purposes, namely, a solvent, provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 22,
Wherein the solvent solution does not include ethanol.
Bakeev teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches a thermal gelling composition having improved high-temperature gel strength comprising: water soluble thermal gelling cellulose ether; nanocrystalline cellulose; and water. As such, Bakeev does not mention the use of any ethanol, including as a solvent. Consequently, the solvent solution does not include ethanol
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 22,
Wherein the solvent solution does not include ethanol.
Regarding Claim 22, Bakeev is silent on the solvent solution does not include ethanol. In analogous art as applied above, Son suggests details regarding the solvent solution does not include ethanol. In analogous art as applied above, and in this regard Son teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that the alcohol may include ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, butanol, or a mixture of two or more of these. As such, the use of only isopropanol is understood to be disclosed.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stark et al. (WO 2007150075 A2) – teaches in the (Abstract) The invention relates to a compositions comprising a nanoparticulate meloxicam composition in combination with a multiparticulate modified release hydrocodone composition that, upon administration to a patient, delivers a hydrocodone in a bimodal or multimodal manner.
Larsson et al. (WO 2013009253 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) New barriers for use in the area of controlled release are provided. The barriers contain micro-fibrillated cellulose (MFC) or nanocrystalline cellulose as the insoluble component. These barriers may also contain a hydrophilic agent, a water-soluble polymer such as hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC), in different concentrations to control the water permeability and diffusion properties of the barriers.
Aristippos Gennadios (US 6214376 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Gelatin-free capsule for use in oral administration of medicines, cosmetic or bath applications, or dietary supplements can be prepared from compositions comprising a) 8-50% by weight of water-dispersible or water-soluble plasticizer, b) 0.5 to 12% by weight κ-carrageenan, c) 0 to 60% dextrins, and d) 1% to 95% by weight water,
Sudo et al. (US 20220071871 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) It is an objective of the present invention to provide a method of producing an alcohol composition that can adjust viscosity so as to achieve an appropriate viscosity while containing HPMC or MC as a thickening agent, even without including no step of heating treatment.
Miki et al. (US 20230406962 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) There are provided hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) having high solubility even when keeping the molar substitution (MS) of hydroxypropoxy groups conventional; and others.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights