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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18526199 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the pending claims are combinations and permutations of the limitations of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18526188 (reference application) in view of Cloud (US 3218776). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the pending claims are combinations and permutations of the limitations of the reference application. The reference application does not explicitly teach a non-fibrous substrate; however, this limitation is taught by Cloud, as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-9 and 11-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18521214 (reference application) in view of Cloud (US 3218776). Claims 10 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18521214 (reference application) in view of Cloud (US 3218776) and Kitamura (US 20200307139). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the pending claims are combinations and permutations of the limitations of the reference application. The reference application does not explicitly teach a non-fibrous substrate; however, this limitation is taught by Cloud, as discussed below. Kitamura teaches optimization of particle flowability, as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18526183 (reference application) in view of Cloud (US 3218776). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the pending claims are combinations and permutations of the limitations of the reference application. The reference application does not explicitly teach a non-fibrous substrate; however, this limitation is taught by Cloud, as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloud (US 3218776) in view of Blessing (US 20060048880).
Regarding Claim 1, Cloud teaches a packaging method for manufacturing a non-fibrous water soluble product comprising pockets of particles sealed between two non-fibrous water soluble films (Closing packages). Cloud does not explicitly teach a method for discretizing the particles as claimed; however, Blessing teaches a method of manufacturing a product comprising particles (abstract), comprising: a) providing a first continuous substrate comprising a first side and moving in a first direction (Fig. 4, carrier material 320, [0096]), b) providing a discretizing unit comprising one or more pockets comprising an opening; c) providing a continuous feed of first particles to at least one of the one or more pockets of the discretizing unit through the pocket opening at least partially filling the at least one of the one or more pockets, d) delivering the first particles from the pocket through the opening onto a portion of the first side of the first continuous substrate (transfer device 440, recesses 452, particles 310, [0100-0101]), and e) at least partially covering the first side of the first continuous substrate (cover material 330, [0103]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Cloud to include manufacturing, as in Blessing, because it is a known method of discretizing particles in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Cloud with a method as in Blessing.
Regarding Claim 2, Cloud teaches a second non-fibrous water soluble substrate (Closing packages). Blessing teaches the covering entrapping at least a portion of the first particles ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cloud teaches entrapping at least a portion of the particles forms a unit dose (Filling pockets).
Regarding Claim 4, Blessing teaches essentially all of the particulate material is transferred to the corresponding indentation ([0101]).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Blessing teaches wherein the discretizing unit comprises a rotor with one or more pockets and the particles are contained in at least one of the one or more pockets of the rotor prior to being delivered onto a portion of the first side of the first continuous substrate (steadily rotating cylindrical transfer drum [0147-0149]).
Regarding Claim 7, Blessing teaches a size of the pocket meters the amount of the first particles to be delivered to the portion of the first side of the first continuous substrate ([0100]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Blessing teaches a constant speed of more than 0.5 m/sec ([0161]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the speeds of the combined references to be any speed taught by Blessing, including those within the claimed range, because Blessing teaches they are all suitable speeds for use with the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, Blessing teaches the first particles are delivered intermittently from the one or more pockets of the discretizing unit (Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, Blessing teaches one or more unit doses formed on the first continuous substrate (Fig. 4A). Blessing teaches both large and small pockets (Fig. 2-3). Blessing does not explicitly teach an area of about 20 mm2 to about 6000 mm2; however, pocket size is an optimizable variable which, in excess, would negatively affect product and packaging costs and, in lack, would negatively affect product effectiveness. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pocket size of the combined references in order to achieve a desirable cost and effectiveness and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed area.
Regarding Claim 12, Blessing teaches the discretizing unit discretizes the continuous flow of the first particles into one or more individual doses (Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 13, The combined references do not explicitly teach an additional apparatus having a second and third continuous substrate, second particles, and a second discretizing unit; however, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI B. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include an additional apparatus because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding Claim 14, Cloud teaches first and second particles (col. 5 ln. 41-60).
Regarding Claim 16, Blessing teaches a constant speed and does not explicitly teach a variable speed; however, Cloud teaches variable speed as an alternative to constant speed (Pocket formation, 1st para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a variable speed, as suggested in Cloud, because it is a known alternative to constant speed and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of the combined references with a variable speed as in Cloud.
Regarding Claim 17, wherein at least one pocket of the discretizing unit travels in sync with the substrate during deposition of the particles onto the first substrate ([0105]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cloud teaches wherein the particles comprise powder (Filling pockets).
Regarding Claim 19, Blessing teaches the first particles are delivered intermittently from the one or more pockets of the discretizing unit (Fig. 4B). Blessing teaches metering the first particles to a target dose ([0058]).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloud (US 3218776) in view of Blessing (US 20060048880) as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-19 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 20200307139).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, The combined references do not explicitly teach wherein the particles have a flowability of about 4 or more; however, Kitamura teaches a powder feeding method wherein input and output characteristics are varied by powder flowability ([0007]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the powder flowability of the combined references, as suggested by Kitamura, in order to achieve the desired input and output characteristics and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed flowability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 1/7/2026, with respect to the previous Section 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the present invention does not require the same pattern on both the dosing and receiving systems (nor does it require the use of vacuum, blow off air). Applicant argues the Gravure offers the unique advantage of being able to run different dose quantities without changes to equipment hardware. Applicant argues the Gravure (and the claimed process) does not need to be limited by a fixed geometry for dosing plus receiving or use of complex vacuums and blow off. Applicant argues the substrate of the present invention is planar versus existing in a pocket that can receive particles as in Cloud. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the absence of a pattern, vacuum, or air; running different dose quantities without changes to equipment hardware; a planar substrate without pockets) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the wiper blades of Cloud, if applied in the context of Blessing, would completely destroy the purpose of creating the complex array of clusters that is key to that process (they would get wiped into a continuous layer... no longer clusters). Applicant argues Cloud is not built for high rates, as in Blessing. In response to applicant's argument that the wipers of Cloud would not be suitable in the process of Blessing and the rates of Blessing would not be achievable by the method of Cloud, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner has not proposed a modification of the process of Blessing to include wiper blades. The examiner has not proposed a modification of the process of Cloud to operate at a speed as in Blessing.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to combine Blessing with Cloud to produce the present invention. Applicant argues the disclosure of Cloud is irrelevant to the Gravure, as exemplified by the use of wiper blades and lack of any discretization of the system for dosing particles which distinguishes its disclosure from the present invention. In response to applicant's argument that Cloud is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Blessing and Cloud are concerned with methods of packaging pockets of particles and therefore are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Applicant argues systems like Cloud that rely on scraper blades cannot be used in the present invention as the claimed process is non- contact with a sensitive substrate that does not require corrective cleaning transformations. In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner has not proposed a combination using scraper blades, as in Cloud.
Applicant argues the other references do not cure the deficiencies; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712