Response to Amendment
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 Interpretation
The examiner interprets the claimed invention as a method of making cl. 1-7; method of manufacturing cl. 8-12 and product formed 13-16. The claims are interpreted as a cartridge of tablets having a longitudal center line with axial partitions with a plurality of tablets adjoined. The tablet(s) have a payload or ingredient(s) coated and comprised within each compressed tablet for a variety of usages. Manufacturing said tablet(s) by compression and modules of like shapes with ingredients leads to the product claimed.
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 6-12 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins (9580896) in view of EP (1915988) is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins (9580896) in view of EP (1915988) and further in view of Ambrosen et al (8,697,621).
Hopkins discloses An object of the invention is to provide an apparatus for the controlled release of an active agent into an aqueous system for a prolonged duration of time. Controlled release refers to the ability to deliver a specified amount or rate of active agent to an aqueous system of use by providing an apparatus that regulates the dissolution profile of the active agent (col. 5, lines 30-38). In some embodiments, the diameter or cross-sectional area of the container opening approximates the diameter or cross-sectional area of the tablet. In some embodiments, the diameter or cross-sectional area of the container opening is larger than the diameter or cross-sectional area of the active agent. The active agent is formed into a tablet structure or plurality of tablet structures having an elongated axis and the active agent is formed into an elongated tablet structure or a plurality of tablets arranged to create a structure having an elongated axis, said tablet structure having a constant cross-sectional area along the length of the elongated axis (col. 7, lines 40-54). In one example, at least two cylindrical active agent tablets are stacked end-to-end to form an elongated cylindrical structure and disposed within a container comprising a reservoir, the reservoir having an elongated axis and a polymeric layer for covering the surface of an active agent along an elongated axis (col. 8, lines 17-22). See also figures 1, 4, 12 and 14. The embodiment describing a cylindrically shaped active agent may be generalized to refer to any shape of active agent having a uniform or relatively uniform cross-sectional area in any given direction along an axis of the active agent. Specific shapes may be manufactured as the active agent, contained in a powdered form, is compressed into tablets. The tablets may be combined or stacked together to form an elongated shape or may be manufactured as the desired shape. The stacked configuration allows the use of tablets containing unique active agents thereby enabling the ordered and sequential delivery of various active agents to an aqueous system depending on the requirements for active agent delivery and the order or arrangement of tablets (col. 9, lines 17-29).
Hopkins discloses axial traverse segments of tables (figure 14); however, center radial partitions are not disclosed nor is the method of coating,
EP ‘988 disclose a multilayered tablet having segmented regions (0018) and specifically, with ingredients sustained to rapidly dissolve said tablet (0022 and 0047). The manufacturing of said tablet within EP ‘988 requires a quadrant shaped tablet having cross sectional lines and a radial center connecting section b (figure 21 and 22; 0057) and wherein a mixtures of granules and rapidly dissolving ingredients (0068). See examples 1, 2, 4 and 6 for process of making coated tablets with granular compression and punched tip with coating machine, atomizing (0079-0081) and spatial segmenting tablets therein.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to comprise the staked multi-tableted delivery system of Hopkins with traverse segments and center radial partitions given the teachings of EP ‘988 which discloses well known tablets having quadrant shapes that are atomized coated and spatially segmented with center radial partitions. Given that Hopkins broadly employs cylindrically shaped active agent may be generalized to refer to any shape of active agent having a uniform or relatively uniform cross-sectional area in any given direction along an axis of the active agent (col. 9, lines 17-29), one skilled would have been motivated to design said tablet with the expectation of design choice or further rapidly dissolution, which is motivation of Hopkins and EP ‘988, absent a showing to the contrary.
With respect to the teachings of specific effervescent materials, such as bicarbonate and citric acids, Ambrosen et al teach materials may be selected from appropriate materials which effervesce on contact with water. In one aspect the first effervescent material comprises at least sodium bicarbonate and citric acid. These materials are present in any suitable amounts to achieve effervescence (col. 3¸lines 61-67). One skilled in the art is able to combine these materials to provide the desired rate of effervescence as suggested by EP ‘988 and Hopkins for their intended purpose.
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
The public use of an ornamental design which is directed toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design is not an experimental use. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-19-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues US 9,580,896 B2 is designed an apparatus for releasing an active agent (typically an antimicrobial chemical) into water-based systems—such as toilet tanks—in a controlled and prolonged manner. The design ensures that a constant, steady quantity of active agent is dispensed over time, regardless of changing surface area—maintaining a reliable antimicrobial concentration. The prolong time may last more than approximately 4 months or even a year and further does not comprise any scaffolding and effervescent material.
The examiner contends that applicant’s claims are read in their broadest and most reasonable interpretation in light of the specification but limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Hopkins teaches a controlled release of ingredients that are dissolvable i.e., releasing into a water based system. Furthermore, EP ‘988 and more specifically, Ambrosen teach the use of bicarbonate and citric acids as specific to further dissolve said apparatus or tablet to be dispersed into said water system.
Applicant’s scaffolding argument is not persuasive given that the term “scaffolding” is defined as a temporary platform and the prior art from Hopkins and EP ‘988 both disclose temporary platforms that are dissolved into water systems and therefore read on applicant’s broadly defined limitation.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention; Cross Med. Prods.,Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761