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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on March 5, 2024. The earliest effective filing date of the application is December 13, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 were originally presented and subject to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 142 in paragraph [0030]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “Hypromellose,” should read “hypromellose” since hypromellose is not a proper noun.
The claims recite “a gelatin, a hypromellose” and “an agar-agar.” These components should not have “a” or “an” prior to the recitation as each one is a specific substance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 states that the packaging is a bottle and claim 13 states that the packaging is a jar. Both bottles and jars are generally defined as a container, typically with a lid, for storing liquids and/or solids. Thus, a bottle and a jar as claimed will be interpreted to mean the same object; a reference teaching one will be considered to teach the other.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-15 recite limitations using the phrase “comprised of,” which is not a proper transitional phrase. The proper transitional phrases are “comprising” (or synonymous phrases), “consisting of,” and “consisting essentially of.” The claims are rendered indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear as it cannot be ascertained if “comprised of” is intending to be inclusive/open-ended (as in “comprising”), exclusionary (as in “consisting of”), or somewhere in the middle (as in “consisting essentially of”). See MPEP 2111.03. For the purposes of examination, the recitations of “comprised of” will be interpreted as “comprising” or “comprises.” In the case of claims 11-14, the claims will be interpreted as “the packaging is a box/bottle/jar/film;” for claim 15, the claim will be interpreted as “the packaging comprises a perforation.”
Claim 6 recites a pod device comprising a body and “a packaging” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how a pod device can comprise a packaging when it is understood that the pod device is contained in a packaging.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuisz et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0039958), herein after referred to as Fuisz.
Regarding claim 1, Fuisz discloses a pod device comprising: a body comprised of at least one water-soluble film layer (i.e., an outer layer) that dissolves in water and houses (i.e., encases) an active component (Abstract; Figs. 3-5), the active component being a powder that is powdered infant formula (i.e., a dissolvable infant formula pod device) [0075].
Regarding claim 2, Fuisz discloses that the film layers (i.e., outer layer) are edible (Abstract; [0002]; [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Fuisz discloses that the edible film layers are comprised of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (an alternative name for hypromellose) (claim 2; [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Fuisz discloses that the powder is comprised of a powdered infant formula ([0002]; [0075]; claim 12).
Regarding claim 6, Fuisz discloses a pod device comprising:
a body comprised of at least one water-soluble film layer (i.e., an outer layer) that dissolves in water and houses (i.e., encases) an active component (Abstract; Figs. 3-5), the active component being a powder that is powdered infant formula (i.e., a dissolvable infant formula pod device) [0075]; and
an outer container housing the film layers containing the powdered infant formula (i.e., a packaging) (claims 35 and 36; [0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Fuisz discloses that the film layers (i.e., outer layer) are edible (Abstract; [0002]; [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Fuisz discloses that the edible film layers are comprised of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (an alternative name for hypromellose) (claim 2; [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Fuisz discloses that the powder is comprised of a powdered infant formula ([0002]; [0075]; claim 12).
Regarding claim 11, Fuisz discloses that the outer container (i.e., packaging) is a box (Fig. 9; [0080]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fuisz discloses that the outer container (i.e., packaging) is a bottle (Fig. 8; [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Fuisz discloses that the outer container (i.e., packaging) is perforated [0080].
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuisz et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0039958) as applied to claims 4 and 9 above and as evidenced by Enfamil (“OptiumTM (Enspire) Infant Formula”).
Fuisz discloses the dissolvable infant formula pod device of claims 4 and 9 as set forth above.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Fuisz also discloses that suitable infant formula powders are those sold under the name “ENFAMIL” [0076]. Enfamil makes and sells powdered infant formula that is cow’s milk based (p. 3 photo, non-fat dry milk from cows; p. 5, Ingredients). Therefore, Fuisz discloses that the infant formula powder is comprised of a cow’s milk-based formula powder.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raszewski (US PG Pub. 2019/0248989).
Regarding claim 1, Raszewski discloses pods (Abstract) comprising: a shell (i.e., body) comprised of a water-soluble film (i.e., outer layer) [0058] that encases a powder that is a powdered infant formula [0059]. Raszewski discloses that this is a device comprising a dissolvable film and a foodstuff sealed within the film (claim 18) wherein the foodstuff is a powdered infant formula (claim 20) (i.e., a dissolvable infant formula pod device comprising a body comprised of a water-soluble outer layer that encases a powder).
Regarding claim 2, Raszewski discloses that the film (i.e., outer layer) is comprised of an edible material [0058].
Regarding claim 3, Raszewski discloses that the edible material is comprised of gelatin [0026].
Regarding claim 4, Raszewski discloses that the powder is comprised of a powdered infant formula ([0059]; claims 18-20).
Regarding claim 6, Raszewski discloses pods (Abstract) comprising: a first sheet/film (i.e., body) comprised of a water-soluble film (i.e., outer layer) ([0050]; [0058]) that encases a powder that is a powdered infant formula [0059]; and a second sheet/film that is the packaging of the device [0050]. Raszewski discloses that this is a device comprising a dissolvable film and a foodstuff sealed within the film (claim 18) wherein the foodstuff is a powdered infant formula (claim 20). Thus, Raszewski discloses a dissolvable infant formula pod device comprising: a body comprised of a water-soluble outer layer that encases a formula powder; and a packaging.
Regarding claim 7, Raszewski discloses that the film (i.e., outer layer) is comprised of an edible material [0058].
Regarding claim 8, Raszewski discloses that the edible material is comprised of gelatin [0026].
Regarding claim 9, Raszewski discloses that the powder is comprised of a powdered infant formula ([0059]; claims 18-20).
Regarding claim 14, Raszewski discloses that the second sheet/film is a film (i.e., the packaging is comprised of a film) [0050].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 EST.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571)-270-3435. 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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791