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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitiello (U.S. Patent Pub. NO. 2020/0369424)
Regarding claim 1, Vitiello teaches a method for cutting a water-soluble tape (Abstract) comprising the steps of:
providing an anvil (7);
providing a rotating knife roller (8) comprising at least one knife (9) having a cutting edge extending outwards from said rotating knife roller (Figures 1-2)
providing a water-soluble tape comprising flat areas comprising a first side and a second side, and single-dose capsules formed inside the water-soluble tape, wherein the single-dose capsules are connected and separated from each other by the flat areas (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0024-0028)
advancing said water-soluble tape in a machine direction at a speed between said anvil and said rotating knife roller with said first side of the water-soluble tape in contact with the anvil (paragraph 0039; Figure 1) and
cutting said water-soluble tape with said at least one knife while said water- soluble tape passes between said anvil and said rotating knife roller, wherein, during a single cutting cycle, the rotating knife roller rotates with at least one first peripheral speed and a second peripheral speed, wherein the second peripheral speed is at least 15% faster than the first peripheral speed and wherein the rotating knife roller rotates at the first peripheral speed when a knife of the at least one knife cuts said water-soluble tape in a direction transverse to the machine direction (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0041-0051)
wherein the first peripheral speed and the speed of the water-soluble tape is different (Paragraphs 0047-0051; Examiner notes Paragraph 0047 provides the rotary knife roll at variable speeds and paragraph 0048 provides the first peripheral speed may be the same as the speed of the water soluble web, and there may be a second speed faster than the water soluble web).
Regarding claim 1: Vitiello discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Vitiello. further discloses variations in rotational speed of the kninfe and variations with the workpiece speed (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0054; Examiner notes that while the speed is “as close as possible” the prior art allows for variations between 1%-5%. Paragraph 0054 also provides “Preferably, the speed of the cutting edge of the knife during the machine direction cutting operation is between 25% greater and 25% smaller, preferably between 10% greater and 10% smaller, more preferably between 5% greater and 5% smaller than the speed of the water-soluble web”)
However, Vitiello does not expressly disclose a ratio between the first peripheral speed and the speed of the water-soluble tape is comprised between 1.1 and 1.25.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Smith et al. to have a ratio between the first peripheral speed and the speed of the water-soluble tape is comprised between 1.1 and 1.25 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Smith et al. would not operate differently with the claimed ratio of speeds between the cutting elements and the workpiece and since the rotary knife is intended to have variable speeds close to the speed of the water-soluble tape, the device would function appropriately having the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ratio between the first peripheral speed and the speed of the water-soluble tape is comprised between 1.1 and 1.12 (Paragraphs 0047-0051).
Regarding claim 3, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one knife of said rotating knife roller comprises from one to ten knives (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said flat areas have a thickness of between 50 microns and 400 microns (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 5, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the single-dose capsules project outwards from said first side (Paragraph 0028; Figure 1)
Regarding claim 6, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the single-dose capsules project outwards from said second side (Paragraph 0028)
Regarding claim 7, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the flat areas comprise longitudinal flat areas and transverse flat areas, the method further comprising cutting the longitudinal flat areas before cutting the transverse flat areas of said water-soluble tape.
Regarding claim 8, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing said water- soluble tape comprises: providing a forming surface having a plurality of cavities, continuously movable in a machine direction,
feeding a first continuous water-soluble film onto said forming surface in a first position, retaining said first continuous water-soluble film on said forming surface while it moves in said machine direction and forming a plurality of recesses in said first continuous water-soluble film, while maintaining the first continuous water-soluble film adherent to said plurality of cavities,- dispensing metered quantities of compositions into said plurality of recesses, - applying a second continuous water-soluble film onto said first continuous water-soluble film and connecting said first and second continuous water-soluble films together by water sealing around plurality of said recesses so as to enclose said metered quantities of compositions between said first and second continuous water- soluble films (paragraphs 0071-0084).
Regarding claim 9, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, comprising receiving and holding said single-dose capsules of said water-soluble tape within respective seats (14) of said anvil (Figure 2; Paragraph 0129)
Regarding claim 10, Vitiello teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each cut of the water- soluble tape is carried out only one at a time by knives of the at least one knife (figure 1 and Paragraph 0128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Examiner has updated the rejection above to include a 103-rejection due to the amendments made to claim 1.
Applicant argues “Vitiello teaches that the peripheral speed of the blades at the cutting point should match the speed V1 of the water-soluble tape and any difference is undesired and should be as low as possible. In this regard, Applicant further submits Vitiello not only fails to disclose the claimed ratio, but also teaches away from using this ratio. As such, it would also not be obvious to attempt to modify Vitiello in a direction away from the disclosed equal speeds because this would contravene the express teachings and intention of Vitiello”. Examiner disagrees. While the prior art of Vitiello notes the rotary speed and the workpiece traveling speed are to be “close to equal” the prior art specifically notes there may be an acceptable variance between 1% and 5%. Paragraph 0054 also provides “Preferably, the speed of the cutting edge of the knife during the machine direction cutting operation is between 25% greater and 25% smaller, preferably between 10% greater and 10% smaller, more preferably between 5% greater and 5% smaller than the speed of the water-soluble web.
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 RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 12/22/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724