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 .
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, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahms (US Publication 2017/0120205).
Regarding claim 1, Dahms teaches a gelation device for gelling capsules (figures 1 and 3, while the materials being worked upon are considered intended use, paragraph 1 teaches emulsifying gel), the gelation device comprising: a tubular column having a longitudinal axis extending along an axial direction of the tubular columns (chamber item 2); a bottom portion (portion proximate item 9) and a head portion (portion proximate item 8) wherein the bottom portion comprises a first fluid inlet for introducing a dispersed phase into the tubular column (item 5, the material being worked upon is considered intended use) and a second fluid inlet for introducing a continuous phase into the tubular column (item 6, the material being worked upon is considered intended use) and wherein the head portion comprises a fluid outlet for removing gelled capsules from the tubular column (item 7); a stirring device being arranged inside the tubular column (stirrer unit item 10), the stirring device comprising one or more stirring elements which are each longitudinally arranged inside the tubular column (figure 3 item C shows stirring elements extending longitudinally, figure 1 shows item 10 extending inside he tube ) and which are each rotatably around the longitudinal axis of the tubular column (paragraph 115, item 10 is rotatably via item 12) and are configured to provide for a radial mixing of the dispersed phase and the continuous phase (item 10 is considered capable of radial mixing of the materials being fed into item 2).
Regarding claim 2, Dahms teaches wherein the one or more stirring elements are rods or plates (Figure 3 shows rods, item C and plates item B).
Regarding claim 3, Dahms teaches wherein the one or more stirring elements are free of radial surfaces (figure 3 item C is considered free of radial surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Dahms teaches wherein the stirring device comprises a top mounting structure (bearing seal item 8) and a bottom mounting structure (bearing seal item 9) wherein a mixing space is defined between the top mounting structure and the bottom mounting structure (the space inside item 2 between items 8 and 9 is considered reading on a mixing space since material is mixed inside the volume of item 2 between items 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Dahms teaches wherein the stirring elements are mounted to an extend between the top mounting structure and bottom mounting structure (the stirring elements on the shaft between items 8 and 9).
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.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahms (US Publication 2017/0120205).
Regarding claim 8, Dahms is silent to the specific shape of the mounting structures. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the mounting structure to accommodate a corresponding shaft shape since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Dahms is silent to the specific location of the inlets. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the inlets to accommodate the location of the supply of materials being fed into the mixer since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, Dahms teaches an inlet tube (items 5 and 6 are shown as inlet tubes feeding to openings). Regarding claim 10, Dahms is silent to the specific location of the inlets. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the inlets to accommodate the location of the supply of materials being fed into the mixer since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Dahms teaches an inlet tube (items 5 and 6 are shown as inlet tubes feeding to openings). Regarding claim 11, Dahms is silent to the specific location of the inlets. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the inlets to the bearing (which would inherently require openings in item 9) to accommodate the location of the supply of materials being fed into the mixer since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Dahms is silent to the transparency of the tubular column. Regarding claim 12, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try modifying the material of the column in order to allow for viewing of the mixing operation by a user.
Regarding claim 13, Dahms teaches two inlets feeding into the bottom portion of the column (items 5 and 6). Regarding claim 13, Dahms is silent to a third inlet feeding into the bottom portion of the column. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of inlets to feed the desired amount of materials into the mixer since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art doesn not teach or fairly suggest the gelation device with the two inlets at the bottom portion, an outlet at the top portion, stirring device comprising one or more group of stirring elements, each element being rotatably about a common group axis which is parallel to the axis of the tubular column.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art doesn to teach or fairly suggest the capsule production device with the gelation device with the two inlets at the bottom portion, an outlet at the top portion, stirring device, and the emulsification device for generating the dispersed phase being in fluid communication with the first inlet of the bottom portion of the gelation device.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a method for gelling capsules with the gelling device, the dispersed phase of a core-forming emulsion which comprises an oil in aqueous solution, a continuous phase including water and a matrix forming agent, transforming the matrix forming agent in the tubular column into a solid matrix such that capsules are formed and removing formed capsules via the outlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights