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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
The Claims use in some cases the name of the element or reference name, followed by a comma, then sometimes an abbreviation followed most of the times by the part number or reference number within parentheses. Some Examples of these would be:
dosing device, DOSDEV (2)
a space, SPACE (1-3)
a bend, BEND (1-5).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). If the Applicant wants to name a part “dosing device (DOSDEV 2)” the Examiner does not necessarily complain, even though it can become cumbersome and confusing if used to frequently; but the use of the comma is not appropriate.
The Examiner also notes that in some cases, for the same element the abbreviation is used in lieu of the full name, such as DOSDEV (2), instead of dosing device (DOSDEV 2). The name of an element should be the same along all the claims.
Note that the problem presents along all the claims so the sample is not to be considered a comprehensive list.
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 to 25 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.
A review of the claims have found numerous instances of limitations not having sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Only as an example:
Regarding Claim 1:
The limitations :
the inside of the inner tube shaped extension,
the opening at the lower end of the inner tube,
the wall of the outer tube shaped extension,
the rim (1-7),
the rim (1-6),
the inner surface of the BEND.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally note that two elements are named “rim”, that can surely cause confusion for examination.
Regarding Claim 14:
The Claim reads on its first line: “A dosing apparatus, DOSAPP (5), comprising DOSDEV (2)”. This is indeterminate for several reasons. The Claim mentions DOSDEV (2) having no antecedent basis on the claim, so the Examiner can assume that it should be dependent of one of the preceding claims, but it is unclear of which, but at the end mentions “DOSDEV (2) and SPACE (1-3) as defined in claim 1”.
On lines 5 and after the claim is interpreted as “the dosing apparatus is adapted for being connected to a gas supply and to a vacuum source”;
Then the claim reads “if the dosing apparatus is connected to the gas supply, then the space is in fluid connection with the gas supply; if the dosing apparatus is connected to the vacuum source, then the dosing chamber is in fluid connection with the vacuum source”.
The Claim is indefinite since it is unclear if the dosing apparatus is to be connected to a gas supply and to a vacuum source or if it’s to be connected optionally to one or the other.
Also, the claim includes the limitation “preferably, DOSAPP (5) can displace DOSDEV (2) in at least one of the at least two positions…”. The term “"preferably" makes a claim indefinite is that it fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with "reasonable certainty" whether the preferred feature is a necessary component or an optional one.
The Claims use the name of the element or reference name, followed by a comma, then sometimes an abbreviation followed most of the times, but not always, by the part number or reference number within parentheses such as (the list is meant to be exemplary, not comprehensive):
dosing device, DOSDEV (2),
space, SPACE (1-3),
bend, BEND (1-5),
opening slit, SLIT (1-8),
angle, ANGLE,
the number of positions of dosing elements, POS-DE-DOSDEV
set of dosing elements (1), SODE
dosing apparatus, DOSAPP (5),
transfer device TRANSDEV (3).
The use of the abbreviations is unnecessary, making the claims very unclear, difficult to read and just complicates examination and search.
Around the claims there are numerous instances of languaje that is either contradictory or very unclear. As an example, on Claim 12:
The dosing device, DOSDEV (2), according to claim 1, wherein DOSDEV (2) comprises a body of DOSDEV (2) (the Examiner imagines that the “ body of DOSDEV (2)” is a new part, but seems to share the same reference number) which has a position of a dosing element (1) (The “body has a “position” of a dosing element, a position involves an orientation, so the Examiner wonders if the Applicant means maybe a position for a dosing element) where a dosing element (1), which is a part which is separable from any other part of DOSDEV (2), can be connected to the body of DOSDEV (2);
DOSDEV (2) is a kit of parts comprising a set of dosing elements (1), SODE, (Claim 1 discloses a dosing device, DOSDEV (2), maybe the applicant means that the dosing device comprises a set of dosing elements) for the position of a dosing element (1) (the dosing elements are positioned on a dosing element?).
Again, the Examiner wants to emphasize that the examples above are not a comprehensive but just an exemplary list; a through revision of the claims is required.
Regarding Claim 4:
The Claim reads: “The dosing device, DOSDEV (2), according to claim 1, wherein DOSDEV (2) is a device that comprises more than one dosing element (1);POS-DE-DOSDEV is the number of positions of dosing elements (1) in DOSDEV; POS-DE-DOSDEV is from 1 to 48”. The Examiner is considering that the Applicant intends to claim that the dosing device can comprise more than one dosing device, but later claims that can comprise up to 48 dosing elements (the “positions of” are being read as –positions for--, not as the dosing devices can be set at 48 different orientations).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation that the dosing device can comprise more than one dosing device, and the claim also recites that can comprise up to 48 dosing elements which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 23:
The Claim is confusing, the positions mentioned on Claim 14 are understood as being positions to where the dosing devices can be moved to, but on this claim, it seems that multiple dosing devices are already in those positions.
Note:
Since the Examiner is considering that the claims are not clear they are being rejected as interpreted, in some cases the “names” are being shortened to facilitate writing the action, such as for example the “outer tube shaped extension” and “inner tube shaped extension” will be called –outer tube—and –inner tube—respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegman (US 6102088).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wegman discloses a dosing device for dosing solid particulate material into a receptacle; the dosing device comprises a dosing element which consists of an inner tube shaped extension and an outer tube shaped extension, both extensions protrude downwards at the lower side of the dosing device (Figure 14, Assembly 500 dispenses particulate material 12 to a container 16, nozzle end 496 will be considered the inner tube shaped extension and lower end of the nozzle assembly 430 where vacuum port 470 is located will be considered the outer tube shaped extension);
the inner tube shaped extension and the outer tube shaped extension are coaxially aligned with respect to each other; the inner tube shaped extension is located within the outer tube shaped extension (Figure 14 annotated, attached);
PNG
media_image1.png
487
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the outer diameter of the inner tube shaped extension is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer shaped extension, whereby a space is formed between the outer tube shaped extension and the inner tube shaped extension, the space extending circumferentially around the inner tube shaped extension (Figure 14 shows a gap between nozzle end 496 and vacuum port 470 where vacuum is pulled from container 16 and will be considered the space);
the inside of the inner tube shaped extension forms a dosing chamber; the opening at the lower end of the inner tube shape extension forms an opening of the dosing chamber at its lower end (Figure 14, cylindrical section of diameter DNO will be considered the dosing chamber and the not numbered opening where the particulate material 12 is being dispensed will be considered the opening of the dosing chamber);
the wall of the outer tube shaped extension extends beyond the rim of the end of the wall of the inner tube shaped extension in axial direction and has a bend in the axial proximity of the end of the wall of the inner tube shaped extension, by this bend the wall of the outer tube shaped extension extends radially inwards at least partially around the end of the inner tube shaped extension (Figure 14 shows the outer tube extending beyond the rim of 496 and having a bend extending radially inwards around the opening);
the outer tube shaped extension ends with an opening whose diameter is smaller than the inner diameter of the outer tube shaped extension axially before the bend (Figure 14, opening indicated also by arrow with no numeral showing suction from the container 16);
the space extends over the inner surface of the bend and further on to the rim of the end of the wall of the outer tube shaped extension, thereby radially inwards from the bend the space ends in an opening slit between the end of the inner tube shaped extension and the end of the outer tube shaped extension (Figure 14, gap between edge of inner tube and rim of outer tube will be considered the slit);
the rim of the end of the wall of the outer tube shaped extension does not extend in a radial inward direction beyond the inner diameter of the end of wall of the inner tube shaped extension (Figure 14, the diameter of the outer tube opening is larger than the diameter of the inner tube opening).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wegman discloses that after the bend, the wall of the outer tube shaped extension ends with an angle relative to the axial direction of the outer tube shaped extension that is from 45 to 90 (Figure 14, an angle of about 45 degrees can be seen).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wegman discloses that the outer tube shaped extension ends with an opening whose diameter is equal to or smaller than the outer diameter of the inner tube shaped extension, and whose diameter is not smaller than the inner diameter of the inner tube shaped extension (Figure 14, the diameter of the outer tube is smaller than the outer diameter of the inner tube and larger than the diameter of the inner tube).
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.
Claims 3 to 5,9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegman (US 6102088).
Regarding Claim 3:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
Wegman does not specifically disclose if the different parts of the dosing device are separable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the parts separable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
Wegman does not disclose the dosing device comprising more than one dosing element.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dosing device made of more than one dosing element, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Wegman does not disclose if all dosing elements protrude axially with the same vertical length and all the lower ends of the outer tube shaped extensions are horizontally aligned with each other with respect to their vertical position in the dosing device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dosing devices identical, since the teachings of the modified invention of Wegman is just duplication of the same part, not modifying it.
Regarding Claim 9:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Wegman does not disclose if the width of the slit is from 0.1 to 1 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the value of width of the slit from 0.1 to 1 mm 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 involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Wegman does not disclose if the inner diameter of the protruding part of the inner tube shaped extension is from 3 to 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the value of the inner diameter of the protruding part of the inner tube shaped extension is from 3 to 10 mm 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 involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14:
Wegman discloses a dosing apparatus comprising a dosing device (Figure 2, powder filling assisting apparatus 10 with vacuum valve assembly 500 of Figure 14 or Figure 13); the dosing apparatus is adapted for being connected to a gas supply and to a vacuum source (Figure 14 shows vacuum sources 472, 520, gas sources 464, 530 and Figure 13 gas source 464); if dosing apparatus is connected to the gas supply then the space is in fluid connection with the gas supply (Figure 13, gas supply 464 is in communication with the space); if dosing apparatus is connected to the vacuum source then the dosing chamber is in fluid connection with the vacuum source (Figure 14, vacuum source 520 is in fluid communication with dosing chamber under 484).
Wegman discloses that the dosing device can be adjusted vertically (Figure 2, directions 72 and 74) but does not disclose horizontal adjustment between two positions. Note that the limitation is expressed as “preferably” so it can be considered as not really required.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the position of the dosing device adjustable since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15:
Wegmans discloses that the dosing apparatus has an interface for interacting with a reservoir for containing solid particulate material; the interface is formed by the lower end of the dosing chamber, that is the opening of the dosing chamber (Figures 4 and 14, the dosing apparatus include a nozzle 32 insertable into opening 42 of the container 16, not numbered on Figure 14; the dosing apparatus also include a sleeve 61 that closes the discharge of particulate material into the receptacle 16.
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegman (US 6102088) as applied to Claim 1 above and in view of Poole (US 2007/0131707).
Regarding Claim 2:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
Wegman does not disclose the receptacle being a two piece hard capsule used for medical and nutritional applications.
Poole teaches a similar device being used to fill any container or capsule that is capable of holding a powder, typically a powder containing a drug substance (Paragraph 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Wegman the teachings of Poole and use the device to fill receptacles being two piece hard capsules used for medical and nutritional applications since the device.
Additionally, since the device of Wegman is designed to fill containers with powder and, as indicated by Poole, two part capsules can be used as containers to be filled with powder, it would be obvious to use the device of Wegman to fill two piece hard capsules.
Regarding Claim 23:
As discussed for Claim 14 above, Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
Wegman does not disclose if the dosing apparatus comprises two dosing devices spaced horizontally.
Poole teaches filling capsules using a dosing apparatus comprising multiple dosing devices spaced horizontally one from the other (Figure 4, powder dispenser modules 54 can be considered the dosing devices, they are identical, so they can be exchanged from one position to the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Wegman the teachings of Poole and use multiple dosing devices spaced horizontally to dispense powder to multiple receptacles at the same time, also making the dosing devices identical would allow for them to be exchanged from one position to the other.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegman (US 6102088) as applied to Claim 1 above and in view of Mawdesley (US 5438396).
Regarding Claim 8:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Wegman discloses the invention as claimed.
Wegman does not disclose the angle being 90 degrees or if the end of the wall of the outer tube ends with a rim that is vertically aligned with the inner surface of the inner tube.
Mawdesley teaches a similar dosing device with an angle of 90 degrees and the end of the wall of the outer tube 16 ends with a rim that is vertically aligned with the inner surface of the inner tube 10 (Figure attached).
PNG
media_image2.png
704
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Wegman the teachings of Mawdesley and have an angle of 90 degrees and the end of the wall of the outer tube ends with a rim that is vertically aligned with the inner surface of the inner tube as an alternative shape for the outer tube to connect to a container.
Note that that the angle of Wegman is a sharp angle, alternatively it would have been obvious to round the sharp angle to avoid damage or injury ang get a rim that is vertically aligned with the inner surface of the inner tube.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 to 13, 16 to 22, 24 and 25 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. In particular the references for Rapparini, Poole, Wegman and Maheshwari disclose structures relevant to the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, THANH TRUONG can be reached at 571-272-4472. 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731