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 without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 6/7/24 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/6/26.
Claim Interpretation
Certain phrases are broad recitations of functional language that do not require the ability to actually do the function recited as-is, because the functional language merely recites the ability of the controller to be modified to perform the function. The phrase “a processor operable to control..” has been interpreted in this fashion; in other words, the controller has the capability of being programmed to recite the claimed function.
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 1 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 phrase “one or more container heaters in mechanical contact with the first and second containers” creates an ambiguity as to whether each container must be equipped with a heater or if only a single heater can be provided to either of the containers to meet the claim.
In order further prosecution, the examiner has assumed that only a single heater in contact with either container is required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2003/0090015) in view of Wiederin (US 2011/0146389), Fugere (US 7331482), and Buchi (Encapsulator B-395 Pro Operation Manual).
As to claim 1, Nakamura teaches a microcapsule formation system [Page 1] comprising: a first container (1) containing a core material [0017, Fig 1]; a second container (5) containing a shell material; containers operated by syringe pumps [0017, 0021] one or more container heaters in mechanical contact with the first and second containers [col 2 line 50-56], the one or more container heaters operable to heat the core and shell materials to a temperature between 0 °C and 250 °C as the heater jackets would be capable of heating to this range[0019, 0020]; a vibration source operable to vibrate the encapsulation cell [0028, 0029, 0046, 0047], the encapsulation cell comprised of an outer nozzle (4b) and an inner nozzle (4a) that form the microcapsule [0027, 0029, Fig 2].
Wiederin teaches a method of providing continuous metering of fluid [Abstract, 0003-0007] wherein each fluid has a pair of syringes [claim 10, 0046-0048, 0051, 0052, 0054, 0055, 0057-0058] as this configuration allowed for continuous and accurate metering of the 2 fluids [0046] via a control unit/processor [Fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Nakamura and utilized a pair of syringe pumps for each fluid operated by a controller, as suggested by Wiederin, in order to allowed for continuous and accurate metering of the 2 fluids.
Fugere notes a dispensing syringe pump [abstract] for encapsulation [col 1 line 24-35] wherein the syringe is equipped with a heater [col 2 line 49-60] controlled by a control unit [col 7 line 44-55, col 3 line 47] which provides reliable and efficient heating in a system that is compact, lightweight and accurate [col 2 line 35-50]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Nakamura and utilized heated syringe pumps operated by controller, as suggested by Fugere, in order to provide encapsulation equipment with an efficient heating in a system that is compact, lightweight and accurate.
Wiederin and Fugere both suggest control systems for the syringe and heaters respectively, their combination with Nakamura would incorporate these features for the reasons provided above.
Buchi teaches a method/apparatus for encapsulation [Page 6, 2.2 Proper Use] wherein a control unit is used to set parameters to control the syringe pump, vibration unit, etc [Page 37, 38] in order to coordinate encapsulation ad control bead size and flow rate [Page 17]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Nakamura and had the processor control the syringe pumps, vibration unit and other parameters, as suggested by Buchi, in order to coordinate the encapsulation process and control the bead size.
As to claim 2, the combination of the heating controller of Wiederin when incorporated into Nakamura would teach the processor is operable to control the one or more container heaters and the one or more syringe heaters to heat the shell material to a temperature between 120°C and 150°C.
The examiner notes that Certain phrases are broad recitations of functional language that do not require the ability to actually do the function recited as-is, because the functional language merely recites the ability of the controller to be modified to perform the function. The phrase “a processor operable to control..” has been interpreted in this fashion; in other words, the controller has the capability of being programmed to recite the claimed function
As to claim 3, the combination of the heating controller of Wiederin when incorporated into Nakamura would teach the processor is operable to control the one or more container heaters and the one or more syringe heaters to heat the core material to a temperature between 50 and 70% of the temperature of the shell material.
The examiner notes that certain phrases are broad recitations of functional language that do not require the ability to actually do the function recited as-is, because the functional language merely recites the ability of the controller to be modified to perform the function. The phrase “a processor operable to control..” has been interpreted in this fashion; in other words, the controller has the capability of being programmed to recite the claimed function.
As to claim 4, The combination of Nakamura and Fugere the one or more syringe heaters comprise temperature controlled casings. Fugere notes that syringes contain an insulated interface, in other words temperature controlled casings to prevent heat flow from one area of the process to another[col 1 line 49-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Nakamura and included temperature controlled casings on the syringes, as suggested by Fugere, in order to prevent heat flow from one area of the process to another.
As to claim 5, The combination of Nakamura, the pair of syringe pumps of Wiederin, and flow rate control Buchi would teach a processor is operable to control the first and second volumetric rates to be between 200 microliters/minute and 50 milliliters/minute.
The examiner notes that certain phrases are broad recitations of functional language that do not require the ability to actually do the function recited as-is, because the functional language merely recites the ability of the controller to be modified to perform the function. The phrase “a processor operable to control..” has been interpreted in this fashion; in other words, the controller has the capability of being programmed to recite the claimed function.
As to claim 6, The combination of Nakamura, the pair of syringe pumps of Wiederin, and flow rate control Buchi would teach processor is operable to maintain the first and second volumetric rates within a 100 microliters/minute error band.
As to claim 7, The combination of Nakamura, the pair of syringe pumps of Wiederin, and flow rate/pressure control Buchi would teach processor is operable to control the first and second pressures to be between 1 to 20 atm.
As to claim 8, Nakamura teaches using gelatin above melting temperature which would meet at least one of the core material and the shell material is in a melted state [0018, 0042]. However, the article worked upon (ie the working materials utilized with an apparatus) does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 9, Nakamura teaches first and second pairs of syringe pumps are operable to pump the melted material as explained above.
As to claim 10, Nakamura teaches the melted materials comprises at least one of a polymer as carrageenan, agar, and gelatin are all biopolymers [0018]. However, the article worked upon (ie the working materials utilized with an apparatus) does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 12, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II. As the limitation of the formed microcapsule has an outer diameter between 1 micrometers and 10 micrometers is just a desired outcome based on process parameters, this is just a manner of operating the device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2003/0090015) in view of Wiederin (US 2011/0146389), Fugere (US 7331482), and Buchi (Encapsulator B-395 Pro Operation Manual), as applied to claims 1-10, 12 above, and in further view of Buchi 2(Encapsulator B-390/B395 Pro) and Graphic Electricals (Vibrator Coils) utilized as an evidentiary reference.
As to claim 11, the combination of Nakamura and Buchi both teach a vibration source and depict the vibration cell as having some covering [Page 17, 20 Buchi, Fig 2 Nakamura] which would reasonably be interpreted as a membrane and Buchi teaches the processor is operable to control a vibration frequency of the vibration source to be between 50 Hz and 10 kHz [Page 15].
Nakamura and Buchi do not explicitly state a membrane and a magnet for generating vibration.
Buchi 2 is a technical data sheet for the same apparatus provided in Buchi reference and notes that vibrating unit is a vibration coil [Page 3] as this had proven successful at producing equally sized core-shell capsules [Page 2, 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Nakamura and utilized a vibrator coil, as suggested by Buchi 2, as this had proven successful at producing equally sized core-shell capsules.
Buchi 2 notes a vibrator coil is the used in both it and the first Buchi reference. The Graphic Electricals reference notes that vibrator coils are actuated with electromagnetic alternating fields, ie require a magnet to operate, and that the coil is “encapsulated in casting resin”, ie a membrane, in order to provide protection to from moisture, dust, and other ambient conditions. Hence, the vibrator coil of Buchi and Buchi 2 would have a magnet and membrane as these are elements that make up all vibrator coils.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights