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 .
Amendments
Applicants’ amendments to the claims filed 3/26/2026 have been entered.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 30-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilhelmsen et al. (US 2015/0072926 A1), cited previously in view of Jianhua (CN 206911440), cited by applicants. This modified rejection was necessitated by amendment.
Vilhelmsen teaches pharmaceutical compositions comprising granules with N-(8-2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino)caprylic acid salt (HPAC) and granules with GLP-1 peptide semaglutide (meeting claims 47 and 49) and magnesium stearate lubricant (meeting claims 45 and 48), the granules produced by compact rollers forming ribbons and then granulating. See entire disclosure, especially abstract, [0008],[0023],[0039],[0042] and [0044] and examples. The roller compactor used was a Gerteis Mini-Pactor, the same roller compactor with a front and rear roller, modified in applicants’ specification with rim strippers. See [0044] of Vilhelmsen and page 20 2nd ¶ of applicant’s specification. It follows that since the roller compactor is the same it too will feature roller rims. Regardless it is noted that any roller will feature what could be considered a rim at the end of the roller on its side.
While Vilhelmsen teaches method of making HPAC granules from ribbons by compacting with Gerteis Mini-Pactor rollers, the reference is silent on modifying the compact roller with rim strippers as claimed.
Jianhua is used for the disclosure within that rim scrappers (reads of strippers) were already well known to be used in compact rollers with both the front and rear rollers to remove materials accumulated on the roller surface. See entire translation of patent provided by applicants. The scrappers made it easy to remove large amounts of material on the roller surface without adversely affecting work efficiency of the rollers and improving service life. It follows that these rim scrappers when used will strip off material adhered to the roller rim located on the side of the roller. Regarding the new limitation on the front and back roller rim strippers extends more than 45 degrees of the circumferential of the roller, the examiner calculated the angle of the rim scrapper (12) in the figure to be 53 degrees, higher than the claimed lower limit.
Since Vihelmsen already suggest producing the granules by roller compaction one of ordinary skill would have a high expectation of success in modifying the Gerteis Mini-Pactor roller compactor with the scrappers of Jianhua. Reason to make such a modification would be to provide the noted advantages taught by Jianhua, notably the ability to remove large amounts of material on roller surface without adversely affecting work efficiency of the rollers and improving service life. Thus the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants assert the references are silent with respect to the angle of the front and rear roller striper extends more than 45 degrees from the circumferential of the rims.
As noted above the limitation is considered met, the examiner calculated the angle of the rim scrapper (12) in the figure to be 53 degrees, higher than the claimed lower limit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7838. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/JAMES W ROGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights