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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of claims, filed on 04/29/2024, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 04/29/2024, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
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 3 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the use of the term "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is being treated as a preferred example, but not a positively recited element of the claim. The use of terms and phrases “preferable”, “such as”, and “in particular” renders the subject matter indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term or phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the use of the term "wherein preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is being treated as a preferred example, but not a positively recited element of the claim. The use of terms and phrases “preferable”, “such as”, and “in particular” renders the subject matter indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term or phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN107157949) in view of Dierckx et al. (US 10751255 B2).
Attention is directed to the English language machine translation of the Hu Primary reference attached to the present Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a method for filling and sealing a liquid-filled hard capsule (Pg 2 lines 40-42 “S1: The capsule body and capsule cap of the hard capsule shell are separated, and then the liquid and/or solid material is filled inside the capsule body”), wherein the hard capsule comprises a capsule body and a capsule cap with edges capable of overlapping with and being fitted to each other (Implicit as it is known for hard capsules of this type to be telescopically joined with overlapping edge regions), the method comprising following steps:
step S1 of separating the capsule body and the capsule cap, filling a material into the capsule body (Pg 2 lines 40-42 “S1: The capsule body and capsule cap of the hard capsule shell are separated, and then the liquid and/or solid material is filled inside the capsule body”), and inflating an inert gas into the capsule cap (Pg 2 lines 43-44 “Using nitrogen and/or inert gas to carry the sealing liquid, atomizing and spraying on the inner surface of the capsule cap to form a liquid film”), wherein the material at least comprises a liquid (Pg 2 lines 40-42);
step S2 of fitting the capsule cap and the capsule body obtained in the step S1 to obtain a liquid-filled capsule (Pg 3 line 5; Combine the capsule body filled with the material with the capsule cap attached with the liquid film”);
step S3 of injecting a glue (Pg 2 lines 43-47; “the adhesive and the solvent are uniformly mixed to obtain a sealing liquid”), and
then heating a location of the glue to implement sealing (Pg 3 lines 5-6; “then heat the combined capsule in a hot air with a temperature of 30-40° C”).
Hu is silent regarding of injecting a glue into a fitting gap, while applying pressure to the liquid-filled capsule, so that the glue fills the fitting gap using negative pressure. Hu additionally teaches it is old and well known to provide capsules of this type comprises a capsule body and a capsule cap with edges (@10) capable of overlapping with and being fitted to each other (Fig. 9B; and Abstract).
Dierckx in a related invention teaches injecting a glue (Col 4 lines 8-15; “a sealing fluid (typically in the form of a liquid such as an aqueous composition comprising one or more organic solvents and optionally one or more adhesive additives”) into a fitting gap (10) of a capsule body and capsule cap (Figs. 9A-9B), while applying pressure to the liquid-filled capsule, so that the glue fills the fitting gap using negative pressure (Abstract; “wherein the clamping member comprises a sealing means adapted to apply a sealing fluid uniformly to a circumferential gap around the capsule to be sealed when in the clamped position, and wherein the clamping member further comprises a suction means adapted to provide an area of low pressure around the capsule after application of the sealing fluid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating injecting a glue into a fitting gap, while applying pressure to the liquid-filled capsule, so that the glue fills the fitting gap using negative pressure as taught by Dierckx in order to remove excess sealing fluid from the capsule, and improve adhesive distribution, and ensure unform sealing. The combination represents a predictable use of known methods to improve a similar device in the same field, yielding a sealing method that meets all limitations of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN107157949) in view of Dierckx et al. (US 10751255 B2), and in further view of Boldis et al. (US 20100212261 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hu as modified teaches inflating of the inner gas (Pg 2 lines 43-44 of Hu) but is silent regarding wherein a temperature of the inert gas which is inflated is within a range of 30°C to 60°C.
Boldis teaches a related method for filling and sealing liquid-filled hard capsules, including inflating gas open capsule parts at a temperature of 50°C to 180°C ([0056] of Boldis teaches ranges (50°C to 180°C) that all fall within the range of 30 to 60°C as required by the claim and therefore meets the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hu as modified to inflate the inert gas at a temperature within a range of 30 to 60°C as taught by Boldis in order to aid in pressure/temperature control during assembly via the heating, enhancing oxidation protection and prevent internal over pressure in liquid-filled capsules ([0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Hu as modified teaches the method of claim 1, including inflating inert gas into the capsule cap as explained above, but is silent regarding wherein an inflation rate in the step S1 is within a range of 0.6 ml/s to 1.2 ml/s; preferably, a volume of the inert gas inflated into the capsule cap is 1.2 times a volume of the capsule cap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hu as modified to use an inflation rate of 0.6 ml/s to 1.2 ml/s and a volume of the inert gas inflated into the capsule cap is 1.2 times a volume of the capsule cap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges and values involves only routine skill in the art as such parameters are result-effective variables for achieving optimal gas fill without over-pressurization, discoverable through routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN107157949) in view of Dierckx et al. (US 10751255 B2), and in further view of Goutard et al. (US 4403461 A).
Regarding claim 9, Hu as modified teaches the method of claim 1, including separating the capsule body and the capsule cap in S1 as explained above but is silent regarding vertically disposing an empty hard capsule with the capsule cap located above the capsule body, and then vertically separating and staggering the capsule body and the capsule cap.
Goutard teaches a related method for filling and sealing hard capsules, including vertically disposing an empty hard capsule with the capsule cap located above the capsule body, and then vertically separating and staggering the capsule body and the capsule cap (Col 6 lines 29-60; and Figs. 2a-2c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hu as modified to vertically disposing an empty hard capsule with the capsule cap located above the capsule body as taught by Goutard in order to ensure clean, precise separation without damage, enabling accurate glue placement
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731