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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (U.S. Patent No. 4,366,663).
Regarding claim 1: Grebe discloses a portion unit comprising at least one filled receiving chamber which is surrounded by a film, obtained by a method comprising the steps of:
a) transporting a first film in the direction of a heating device (Fig. 1; via film 2 through heating devices 36 & 37);
b) bringing the first film into contact with a surface of the heating device (Figs. 2-4; via film 2 in contact with heat sealing element 17);
c) heating the first film using the heating device (Fig. 1; via heating plate 4 and further hot sealing upper mold part 17);
d) breaking the contact between the first film and the heating device (Fig. 4; via film 2 is conveyed away from the heating plate 4 and/or heating element 17 is withdrawn away from film 2);
e) molding the first heated film into a cavity of a deep-drawing die to form a receiving container comprising at least one receiving chamber (Figs. 1-3; via film 2 heated via 4 and molded into cavity via 9 and further heated/packaged into cavities of the heated upper/lower mold of station 36 and/or 37);
f) filling the at least one receiving chamber (via “the containerlike formed lower foil, which in the meantime has been filled with a material 12”);
g) optionally sealing and separating the filled receiving containers to form the portion unit (Fig. 1; via finish sealing of the formed pouches and separated by knife 22),
wherein the surface region of the heating device that is brought into contact with the film has at least one depression (via curved portions of the upper sealing mold 17) and the at least one depression is covered in step b) by the subregions of the first film which are molded into the cavity of the deep-drawing die in step e), see for example (Figs. 2-3; via film 2 covering the curved portions of heated mold tool 17); and
the portion unit has improved film thickness and improved mechanical stability when prepared with the heating device having the surface region with at least one depression, compared to a portion unit prepared by means of a planar heating plate provided without at least one depression (intended use limitations of the claimed “portion unit”; not given much patentable weight).
Grebe does not disclose the amended claim referring to the use of a first film to be a water-soluble film. However, the Office takes an official notice that a use of “water-soluble film” is very old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted Grebe’s film material, by another “water soluble film”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9: wherein the portion unit has at least two receiving chambers (Figs. 1-4; via the shown two receiving curved portions on upper mold 17), wherein the heating device has a number of depressions corresponding to the number of receiving chambers (via the shown corresponding curves on mold 16), which depressions are covered in step b) by the subregions of the first film which are molded into the cavity of the deep-drawing die in step e) to form the at least two receiving chambers, and the at least two receiving chambers at least partially surround one another (see for example Fig. 1; via web 2 molded into cavities of curved upper/lower molds 16/17; while having both shown curved chambers “partially” surround one another).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the portion unit has at least two receiving chambers (via the shown two curved portions of molds 16/17),
wherein the heating device has a number of depressions corresponding to the number of receiving chambers (via the pressing curved surfaces of molds 16/17), which depressions are covered in step b) by the subregions of the first film which are molded into the cavity of the deep-drawing die in step e) (via web 2 covers and/or in direct contact with the surfaces of the curved portions of molds 16/17) to form the at least two receiving chambers, and the portion unit has at least two receiving chambers which are arranged rotationally symmetrically about a common central point (via the shown two curved portion of each mold 16/17 are arranged symmetrically about a common central point).
Regarding claim 11: Grebe discloses that the receiving container has at least two receiving chambers (via the shown two curved portions of each mold 16/17).
Grebe does not specifically suggest the ratio of the volume of the largest receiving chamber to the volume of the smallest receiving chamber is 4:1 to 1:1. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Grebe’s method by having two receiving chambers instead of being symmetric in dimensions to be off and different with a ratio of the volume of the largest receiving chamber to the volume of the smallest receiving chamber is 4:1 to 1:1, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Grebe ‘663 shows heating plate 4 heat foil 2 and it does not have one depression, rather it appears planar. Also, foil 2 does not come into contact with a surface of hot-sealing upper mold part 17. Further, applicant argues that the hot sealing mold parts of ‘663 are used to seal two foils and not heat a water-soluble film prior to conducting steps.
The Office draws applicant’s attention that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, as it appears that applicant is reading too much of the filed invention into the claimed language. The Office believes that no where in the claimed invention requires heating the film material and molding the film material at the same time nor using the same tools as applicant appears to be arguing. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., heating and molding the film material using the same structure and/or in as a single step) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Office as explained above believes that both claimed steps of “heating the first film” and “molding the first heated film into a cavity” are clearly suggested by the applied art ‘663 (Fig. 1; via heating the film via plate 4, then molded via mold 9 and even further to complete the process of packaging mold/press took place with hot upper and lower molds via 17/16).
Further, the Office as explained above believes that the applied art ‘663 indeed shows step and means of heating the film material first prior to the conducting step (Fig. 1; via film 2 passes by the heating plate 4 prior to being molded at mold 9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights