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 Species II (claims 9-11) in the reply filed on 08/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The filed specification is missing some headings, for example BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface region" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 (via hot sealing upper mold part 17);
d) breaking the contact between the first film and the heating device (Fig. 4; via 17 is withdrawn away from film 2);
e) molding the first heated film into the cavities of a deep-drawing die to form a receiving container comprising at least one receiving chamber (Figs. 1-3; via film 2 molded into cavities of 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).
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).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (U.S. Patent No. 4,366,663).
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.
Conclusion
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