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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I & Species IB and IIB (Claims 1 – 3 & 11 – 15, and Figs. 8 – 11B) in the reply filed on (9 – 12 – 2025) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that while unity of invention exists among claimed inventions when there is a technical relationship involving the same or corresponding technical features. 37 CFR §1.475 sets forth that claims to different statutory categories will be considered to have unity of invention when, as one example, the claims are drawn to a product and a process for use of the product, or as another example, the claims are drawn to a product and a process for its manufacture. This is not found persuasive because as noted in MPEP 1850, 37 CFR §1.475, II. Determination of Unity of Invention, an international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (PCT Rule 13.1). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application, unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” is defined in PCT Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Which as noted in the prior restriction requirement was determined that the special technical features among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical feature did not make a “contribution” over the prior art. Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Consequently, claim(s) 4 – 10 and 16 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the same reply filed on (9 – 12 – 2025).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 are 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.
The term “…local maxima and local minima…” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “local” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It should be noted that while the terms local maxima and local minima are well known and defined mathematical terms, their very definitions i.e., a point on a function's graph that is higher / lower than all the nearby points in its immediate vicinity / neighborhood. Is itself undefined due to the term, immediate vicinity / neighborhood is not being specified, i.e., a certain radius of 1 meter away? 2 meters away? On the opposite side of the plane? Etc.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 3 & 14 – 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur S. Taylor et al. (US 3124840 A, hereinafter Taylor)Regarding claim 1,
A vacuum molding roll sleeve comprising:
a body comprising a mold wall portion disposed between a molding surface and
at least one vacuum surface,
wherein the molding surface has shaped depressed features,
wherein the molding surface has first openings disposed therein at first predetermined positions,
wherein each first opening is spaced apart from the at least one vacuum surface by a respective minimum thickness,
wherein the at least one vacuum surface has second openings disposed therein at second predetermined positions,
wherein the first openings are fluidly connected to the second openings by conduits,
wherein, on a respective basis, at least some of the conduits are longer than the minimum thickness between the first openings and the vacuum surface,
wherein the vacuum molding roll sleeve is configured such that at least partial vacuum can be applied to the first openings through the conduits fluidly connected thereto, and
wherein the vacuum molding roll sleeve is mountable on a backup roll.
Taylor teaches the following:
(Col. 2, lines 60 – 65) teaches that the die toll system as shown in (Figs. 1 & 2) comprises a die roll 11 that may be built up from a cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12. Where the a die roll 11 acts as applicant's body. (Col. 2, lines 70 – End) teaches that a capsule cavity insert 21, preferably of hardened steel fits in each insert slot 20. (Col. 3, lines 3 – 4) adding that the capsule cavity insert 21 may be held in position in the insert slot 20 by an insert screw 25. Where the capsule cavity insert 21 position in the insert slot 20, insert screw 25 and the capsule ejector piston 23, acts as applicant's mold wall portion disposed between a molding surface.
(Col. 3, lines 2 – 7) teaches that cavity die roll comprises a capsule ejector piston 23 in a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24, from the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 runs a manifold passage 26 to a valve seat surface 27 of the die roll. Where the valve seat surface 27 acts as applicant's at least one vacuum surface.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2 & 4 – 5), the molding surfaces can comprise various shapes including a shape with depressed features. Accordingly, while no perceived discrepancies exist regarding the molding surfaces can comprising shaped depressed features. The case law for the change of shape may be recited.
(Col. 3, lines 5 – 7) teaches that from the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder runs a manifold passage 26 to a valve seat surface 27 of the die roll. With (Col. 3, lines 29 – 31) adding that a hold-down vacuum chest 33 provides for vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), the insert slot 20 has variety of first openings, namely at one end of the manifold passage 26 leading to a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 and for a vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34 are found at predetermined positions.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), each of the various first openings found at one end of the manifold passage 26 and a vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34 are found to be spaced apart from the at least one vacuum seat surface 27 by a respective minimum thickness. Additionally, the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 is found to be spaced apart from the at least one vacuum seat surface 27 by a respective minimum thickness as well.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), the vacuum seat surface 27 has a plurality of openings second openings disposed therein at second predetermined positions, including the plurality of vacuum connections 31, and pressure connections 38.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), the insert slot 20 has variety of conduits namely a manifold passage 26 and a vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34 that are found to provide a connection between the first openings found at one end of the manifold passage 26 and a vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34 and the second openings found at the other end at vacuum seat surface 27.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), at the conduits are longer than the minimum thickness between the first openings and the vacuum surface, thus providing a connection between the minimum thickness between the first openings and the vacuum surface with the second openings.
(Col. 3, lines 10 – 35) teaches that the valve plates conveniently, but not necessarily, are coaxial with the die roll hub 13 and are positioned by sliding on the hub. In the valve plates, adjacent to the valve seat surface of the die roll are the vacuum chests 30 to control the vacuum for holding the capsule ejector piston and its associated plug at the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder. Vacuum to this chest is provided by a vacuum connection 31. Also connected to this vacuum chest is a balancing chamber 32 which balances the vacuum around the valve plate so that the vacuum forces are more nearly equalized. A hold-down vacuum chest 33 provides for vacuum to the hold-down bleeds 34, which are a series of small holes drilled in the peripheral face of the die roll outside of the capsule cavity inserts which supply vacuum to hold the plastic strip outside of the capsule cavity inserts against the face of the die roll. As such, at least a partial vacuum can be applied to the first openings through the conduits that are fluidly connected.
(Col. 4, lines 10 - 12) teaches that the die roll is positioned on a die roll shaft 15. The die roll hub 13 is held against a collar 44 by a retaining nut 45. As such, the die roll / vacuum molding roll sleeve is mounted on the die roll shaft 15 / backup roll.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising at least one vacuum manifold in fluid communication with the at least one vacuum surface,
wherein each of the at least one vacuum manifold comprises at least one vacuum port disposed on at least one end of the vacuum molding roll sleeve and fluidly connected to the at least one vacuum manifold,
wherein the at least one vacuum manifold is disposed within the vacuum molding roll sleeve.
Taylor teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 2 – 7) teaches that cavity die roll comprises a capsule ejector piston 23 in a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24, from the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 runs a manifold passage 26 to a valve seat surface 27 of the die roll. Where capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 acts as applicant’s vacuum manifold found to be in fluid communication with a valve seat surface 27 via the manifold passage 26.
(Col. 3, lines 2 – 7) teaches that cavity die roll comprises a capsule ejector piston 23 in a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24, from the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 runs a manifold passage 26 to a valve seat surface 27 of the die roll. (Claim 1) noting the cylindrical roll and having at least one piston cylinder under said insert. As illustrated in (Fig. 2), ejector piston cylinder 24 / vacuum manifold is found to have one end comprises at least one vacuum port disposed on at least one end of the vacuum molding roll sleeve / one vacuum port disposed on the surface of said die roll blank while being fluidly connected.
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), the ejector piston cylinder 24 / one vacuum manifold of the die roll is found to be within the vacuum molding roll sleeve.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising
a back surface opposite the molding surface,
wherein the at least one vacuum surface forms a portion of the back surface,
wherein a raised portion of the back surface encircles the at least one vacuum surface and,
if the vacuum molding roll sleeve is mounted on the backup roll, forms at least one vacuum manifold in fluid communication with the at least one vacuum surface, and
wherein at least one vacuum port is disposed on at least one end of the vacuum molding roll sleeve and fluidly connected to the at least one vacuum manifold.
Taylor teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), both the cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12 and the a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 are found to act as applicant’s back surfaces opposite the molding surface.
As noted, above the valve seat surface 27 / vacuum surface is found to be a portion / extension of the cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12, where the valve plates 29 and the cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12 make contact. As such, the valve seat surface 27 / vacuum surface is found to be a portion / extension of the back surface / cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12.
As shown in (Fig. 2) the valve seat surface 27 / vacuum surface is found to be a portion / extension of the back surface / cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12. Particularly, the valve seat surface 27 / vacuum surface is found to be within an overhang of the back surface / cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12 such that a raised portion of the back surface / cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12 encircles the at least one the valve seat surface 27 / vacuum surface.
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), the die roll 11 / the vacuum molding roll sleeve is found to comprise a structure that provides for the ejector piston cylinder 24 / vacuum manifold to be in fluid communication with a valve seat surface 27 / one vacuum surface via the manifold passage 26.
As illustrated in (Fig. 2), the die roll 11 / the vacuum molding roll sleeve is found to comprise a structure that provides for one vacuum port is disposed on at least one end of the vacuum molding roll sleeve and fluidly connected to the at least one vacuum manifold. Namely, the ejector piston cylinder 24 / vacuum manifold is found to have one end comprises at least one vacuum port disposed on at least one end of the vacuum molding roll sleeve / one vacuum port disposed on the surface of said die roll blank while being fluidly connected. Noting, (Col. 3, lines 2 – 7) teaches that cavity die roll comprises a capsule ejector piston 23 in a capsule ejector piston cylinder 24, from the bottom of the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 runs a manifold passage 26 to a valve seat surface 27 of the die roll. (Claim 1) noting the cylindrical roll and having at least one piston cylinder under said insert.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the molding surface comprises overhanging features.
Taylor teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 4 – 5), the molding surface is found to comprise various shapes. In particular, the piston is shown to be raised to substantially the top of said cavity by air pressure. Where the shape of the molding surface is found to have overhanging features when the piston is raised to substantially the top of said cavity by air pressure. Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the molding surface comprises overhanging features. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein at least the molding surface comprises conjoined discrete layers of a material.
Taylor teaches the following:
(Col. 2, lines 60 – 65) teaches that the die toll system as shown in (Figs. 1 & 2) comprises a die roll 11 that may be built up from a cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12. Where the a die roll 11 acts as applicant's body. (Col. 2, lines 70 – End) teaches that a capsule cavity insert 21, preferably of hardened steel fits in each insert slot 20. (Col. 3, lines 3 – 4) adding that the capsule cavity insert 21 may be held in position in the insert slot 20 by an insert screw 25. Where the capsule cavity insert 21 position in the insert slot 20, insert screw 25 and the capsule ejector piston 23, acts as applicant's mold wall portion disposed between a molding surface. As such, the molding surface comprises conjoined discrete layers formed by the capsule cavity insert 21 position in the insert slot 20, insert screw 25 and the capsule ejector piston 23 .
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein, relative to distance from the at least one vacuum surface, the molding surface comprises a plurality of local maxima and local minima, and
wherein at least a majority of the local minima has one of the first openings disposed proximate thereto.
Taylor teaches the following:
& b.) (Col. 2, lines 60 – 65) teaches that the die toll system as shown in (Figs. 1 – 2) comprises a die roll 11 that may be built up from a cylindrical cavity die roll blank 12. Where the a die roll 11 acts as applicant's body. (Col. 2, lines 70 – End) teaches that a capsule cavity insert 21, preferably of hardened steel fits in each insert slot 20. (Col. 3, lines 3 – 4) adding that the capsule cavity insert 21 may be held in position in the insert slot 20 by an insert screw 25. Where the capsule cavity insert 21 position in the insert slot 20, insert screw 25 and the capsule ejector piston 23, acts as applicant's mold wall portion disposed between a molding surface. As illustrated in (Fig. 2 – 5), the molding surface is found to comprise local maxima and minima, with the capsule ejector piston 23 is found at the bottom of a local minimum forming a portion of the molding surface. In particular, capsule ejector piston 23 is found within the capsule ejector piston cylinder 24. As such, at least a majority of the local minima has one of the first capsule ejector piston cylinder 24 / openings disposed proximate thereto.
B.) Claim(s) 12 – 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and in view of F.E Stirn et al. (US 2697317 A, hereinafter Stirn) as evidenced by Wikipedia’s Article on Micarta (Micarta, 2001, hereinafter WAOM)Regarding claim(s) 12 – 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the vacuum molding roll sleeve comprises organic polymer.
Wherein the organic polymer is crosslinked.
Regarding Claim(s) 12 – 13, Taylor is silent on the vacuum molding roll sleeve comprises organic polymer and that the organic polymer is crosslinked. In analogous art as applied above, Stirn suggests details regarding the vacuum molding roll sleeve comprises organic polymer and that the organic polymer is crosslinked, and in this regard, Stirn teaches the following:
(Col. 6, lines 55 – 64) teaches that the valve plate may be of molded plastic such as Micarta, or of metal. Portions of the plate may be cut away to cut down on the sliding areas to reduce friction. Highlighting evidence from WAOM which states in the (Abstract) that Micarta is understood to be a thermosetting plastic made by layering fabrics like linen or canvas with a phenolic resin. As such, Micarta includes / comprises phenolic resin a type of crosslinked organic polymer.
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 soft plastic capsules from plastic sheet with a die roll for forming material which comprises: a substantially cylindrical die roll blank, having in the cylindrical periphery thereof a series of capsule-forming cavities of Taylor. By modifying the vacuum molding roll sleeve to comprise a valve plate that is molded plastic such as Micarta, as taught by Stirn. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a valve plate fabricated from molded plastic such as Micarta as it provides for a plate that may be smoothly placed against the surface of the cavity die roll throughout its entire periphery, as illustrated in (Fig. 2), (Col. 6, lines 55 – 64) . Accordingly, the use of a known material, i.e., Micarta
C.) Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and in view of Vernon W Dakin (US 3091808 A, hereinafter Dakin) Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the molding surface comprises overhanging features.
Taylor teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 4 – 5), the molding surfaces are found to comprise various shapes.
Regarding Claim 11, Taylor is silent on the molding surface comprises overhanging features. In analogous art for packaging machine for forming articles using a differential pressure actuated forming device comprising a freely rotatable drum, a plurality of circumferentially spaced depressions formed on the outer periphery of said drum, (Abstract), Dakin suggests details regarding the molding surface comprises overhanging features, and in this regard, Dakin teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 2) the forming cavities 52 / molding surface are shown to comprises overhanging features, which are reflected in the article being formed comprising ridges / ribbed surface.
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 soft plastic capsules from plastic sheet with a die roll for forming material which comprises: a substantially cylindrical die roll blank, having in the cylindrical periphery thereof a series of capsule-forming cavities of Taylor. By modifying the molding surface to comprises overhanging features, as taught by Dakin. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mold that comprises overhanging features as it provides for fabricating an article being comprising ridges / ribbed surface, (Fig. 2). Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the molding surface comprises overhanging features. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stirn et al. (US 2799048 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that this invention relates to an improvement in a die roll for an encapsulating machine for the formation of soft plastic capsules from plastic strip material, such as soft gelatin. The capsules may be filled with powder or liquid or powder and liquid.
Stirn et al. (US 2902802 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that this invention relates to a sealing roll system for use in forming and filling soft plastic capsules from a plastic strip, and more particularly to a die roll in which 'the cutting out' rims reciprocate in. the die-roll, so as to be flush during the filling step, and which rise to cut through: the plastic strips in the cutting out step, and (2) a flexible metal belt serving as the sealing member acting against cutting out rims on a die roll.
Stirn et al. (US 2775081 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) This invention relates to improvements in a method and an apparatus for forming and filling capsules from a strip of plastic sheet material, such as soft gelatin, with a pro-compacted high density powder substance.
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 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743