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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
[AltContent: rect]The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/853,523 (reference application; herein referred to as copending ‘523). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 1: copending ‘523 claims, in claim 1, a method for producing a portion unit having at least one filled receiving chamber surrounded by a film (copending ‘523 at claim 1, lines 1-2), comprising the steps of:
a) transporting a first film in the direction of a heating device (copending ‘523 at claim 1, line 4);
b) bringing the first film into contact with a surface of the heating device (copending ‘523 at claim 1, line 5);
c) heating the first film using the heating device (copending ‘523 at claim 1, line 6);
d) breaking the contact between the first film and the heating device (copending ‘523 at claim 1, line 7);
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 (copending ‘523 at claim 1, lines 8-9);
f) filling the at least one receiving chamber (copending ‘523 at claim 1, line 10);
g) optionally sealing and separating the filled receiving containers to form the portion unit (copending ‘523 at claim 1, lines 11-12),
wherein the surface region of the heating device that is brought into contact with the film has at least one depression 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) (copending ‘523 at claim 1, lines 13-16).
Thus, instant claim 1 and claim 1 of copending ‘523 are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 9: copending ‘523 claims, in claim 9, wherein the portion unit has at least two receiving chambers, wherein the heating device has a number of depressions corresponding to the number of receiving chambers, 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, preferably at least three, and in particular at least four, receiving chambers (copending ‘523 at claim 9, lines 1-5).
Thus, instant claim 9 and claim 9 of copending ‘523 are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 specification as filed is missing various headings, e.g., BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, etc. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the direction” recited in line 3 is objected to as this claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitation with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used – therefore, the recitation above should read “a direction” to overcome this objection;
“the filled receiving containers” recited in line 10 of the claim should read “the filled at least one receiving chamber” as introduced in line 9 of claim 1 –one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the filled receiving containers” was intended to reference “the filled at least one receiving chamber” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; however, the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout; and
“the film” recited in line 11 of the claim should read “the first film” as introduced in lines 3-4 of the claim – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the film” was intended to reference “the first film” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; however, the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “the opening area of the at least one depression” and “the opening area of the cavity” are objected to as this claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitations above should read “an opening area of the at least one depression” and “an opening area of the cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “the opening area of the depression” and “the opening area of the cavity” are objected to as this claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitations above should read “an opening area of the depression” and “an opening area of the cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “the opening area of the depression” and “the opening area of the cavity” are objected to as this claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitations above should read “an opening area of the depression” and “an opening area of the cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “the opening area” and “the bottom surface” are objected to as this claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitations above should read “an opening area of the depression” and “a bottom surface”.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “2:3 to 1 to 5” should be amended such that it reads “2:3 to 1:5”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the number of receiving chambers” in line 4 should read “the at least two receiving chambers” as introduced in lines 2-3 of the claim – one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the number of receiving chambers” was intended to reference “the at least two receiving chambers” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; however, the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface of the heating device is coated at least in portions in the region” should be amended such that it reads “a surface of the heating device is coated at least in portions in a region”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface of the heating device is coated over the entire surface in the region of the depression(s)” should be amended such that it reads “a surface of the heating device is coated over an entire surface in a region of the depression”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the film” should be amended such that it reads “the first film”; and “the distance between the surface” should be amended such that it reads “a distance between a surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a temperature in the range of” should be amended such that it reads “a temperature in a range of”. 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.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the surface region" in line 11 and “the subregions” in line 12. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a surface region or a subregion making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the cavities” in line 7 and “the cavity” in line 13. It is not clear if the recitation of “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the cavities” recited in line 7. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavities” is being interpreted to be “a plurality of cavities” and “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in the claim. Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 2: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the cavity" in line 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which does not include a cavity, but rather cavities; therefore, it is not clear if the recitation “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the plurality of cavities” in line 7 of claim 1 or if the recitation is intending to reference “the plurality of cavities”. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in claim 1. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 3: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the outline" in line 2. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which does not include an outline; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of an outline making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the cavity" in line 3. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which does not include a cavity, but rather cavities; therefore, it is not clear if the recitation “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the plurality of cavities” in line 7 of claim 1 or if the recitation is intending to reference “the plurality of cavities”. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in claim 1. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 4: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the outline" in line 2. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not include an outline; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of an outline making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the cavity" in line 3. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not include a cavity, but rather cavities; therefore, it is not clear if the recitation “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the plurality of cavities” in line 7 of claim 1 or if the recitation is intending to reference “the plurality of cavities”. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in claim 1. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 7: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the cavity" in lines 2-3. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which does not include a cavity, but rather cavities; therefore, it is not clear if the recitation “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the plurality of cavities” in line 7 of claim 1 or if the recitation is intending to reference “the plurality of cavities”. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in claim 1. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 9: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the cavity" in line 3. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, which does not include a cavity, but rather cavities; therefore, it is not clear if the recitation “the cavity” is intending to reference a specific cavity of “the plurality of cavities” in line 7 of claim 1 or if the recitation is intending to reference “the plurality of cavities”. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the cavity” is being interpreted to be equivalent to “the plurality of cavities” previously introduced in claim 1. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 14: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the first water soluble film" in line 2. Claim 14 depends from claim 1, which does not include a first water soluble film, only a first film; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 10 first introduces "the film being selected from the group of water-soluble films" in line 2, but claim 14 does not depend from claim 10. For the purposes of art rejections, "the first water soluble film" recited in claim 14 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the film being selected from the group of water-soluble films introduced in claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art [AltContent: rect]against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe (US 4,366,663; herein referred to as Grebe) in view of Bitzer et al. (EP 3078478; herein referred to as Bitzer; made of record in the 10/02/2024 IDS, citations taken from the translated version provided herewith).
As to claim 1: Grebe discloses the claimed method for producing a portion unit having at least one filled receiving chamber surrounded by a film (Grebe at FIG. 1), comprising the steps of:
a) transporting a first film in the direction of a heating device (i.e., foil 2 being transported by rollers 3 to heating plate 4) (Grebe at column 2, lines 23-25; FIG. 1);
b) bringing the first film into contact with a surface of the heating device (i.e., foil 2 is guided via rollers 3 over heating plate 4 provided for heating foil 2) (Grebe at column 2, lines 24-25; FIG. 1);
c) heating the first film using the heating device (i.e., foil 2 is guided via rollers 3 over heating plate 4 provided for heating foil 2) (Grebe at column 2, lines 24-25; FIG. 1; FIGs. 2-4);
d) breaking the contact between the first film and the heating device (i.e., foil 2 is moved from heating plate 4 to deep drawing station 36) (Grebe at FIG. 1);
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 (i.e., deep drawing station 36 has a lower deep-drawing mold 9 and a deep drawing mold bridge 10, which serve to form the foil 2 into plural container like segments 11) (Grebe at column 2, lines 43-45; FIG. 1);
f) filling the at least one receiving chamber (i.e., the foil 2 in the form of a container 11 then travels into the packaging device 37, and in the meantime has been filled with material 12 to be packaged) (Grebe at column 2, lines 45-49; FIG. 1); and
g) optionally sealing and separating the filled receiving containers to form the portion unit (i.e., the foil 2 in the form of container 11, and filled with material 12, travels to the packaging device 37 so that foil 19 can be welded thereto to form the container like shape; the container like shape is then guided to a transverse-cutting device 22 and a longitudinally extending cutting knife 23 which separates the plural container like segments into individual packages) (Grebe at column 2, lines 47-56; FIG. 1).
Grebe discloses foil 2 being heated by heating plate 4 (Grebe at column 2, lines 24-25; FIG. 1; FIGs. 2-4); though, Grebe fails to explicitly disclose, in a single embodiment, the claimed wherein the surface region of the heating device that is brought into contact with the film has at least one depression 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).
However, Bitzer teaches a heating device for heating a film which easily produces a defined and controlled temperature profile over the entire film web (Bitzer at [0004]). Bitzer further teaches the heating device being used in a thermoforming machine 2 for forming cups in a web of film (Bitzer at [0023], Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and the heating device including a heating plate 40 which includes a plurality of recesses therein and is brought into contact with film, the recesses 42 are each formed in the heating plate 40 as depressions (i.e., wherein the surface region of the heating device that is brought into contact with the film has at least one depression 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)) (Bitzer at [0025], [0029], [0033], [0037], Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a surface region of a heating device, in contact with a film, having at least one depression which is covered by the film when molded as such is known in the art of packaging methods given the discussion of Bitzer above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and/or a simple substitution of one heating element (i.e., heating plate 4 of Grebe) for another (i.e., heating plate with depressions of Bitzer) to obtain predictable results – with the added benefit of the heating plate with depressions being arranged in a predetermined pattern allowing for a predetermined temperature profile in the film web in a targeted manner (as recognized by Bitzer at [0012]).
As to claim 2: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, further read on the claimed wherein the opening area of the at least one depression is smaller than the opening area of the cavity, given the combination presented in claim 1 (i.e., the cavities present in Grebe’s FIG. 1 of the deep drawing station 36 and packaging device 37 and the depressions 42 in the heating plate 40 taught by Bitzer), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, further read on the claimed wherein the outline of the opening area of the depression is modeled on the outline of the opening area of the cavity, given the combination presented in claim 1 (i.e., the cavities present in Grebe’s FIG. 1 of the deep drawing station 36 and packaging device 37 and the depressions 42 in the heating plate 40 taught by Bitzer), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the outline of the opening area of the depression is obtained from the outline of the opening area of the cavity by a reduction factor of 0.4 to 0.95.
However, the cavities present in Grebe’s FIG. 1 of the deep drawing station 36 and packaging device 37 and the depressions 42 in the heating plate 40 taught by Bitzer, along with Bitzer further teaching the recesses/depressions being formed in a predetermined pattern on the heating plate 40, the predetermined pattern having any shape (Bitzer at [0036]) would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the outline of the opening area of the depression is obtained from the outline of the opening area of the cavity by a reduction factor of 0.4 to 0.95, 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. One would have been motivated to have the outline of the opening area of the depression is obtained from the outline of the opening area of the cavity by a reduction factor of 0.4 to 0.95 for the purpose of the recesses/depressions being arranged in the predetermined pattern allowing for a predetermined temperature profile in the film web in a targeted manner (as recognized by Bitzer at [0012]).
As to claim 5: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Bitzer further reads on the claimed wherein the depression has a hemispherical, compressed hemispherical, elongated hemispherical or compressed and elongated hemispherical three-dimensional shape (Bitzer at Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Bitzer further reads on the claimed wherein the depression has a maximum depth, measured as an orthogonal distance between the opening area and the bottom surface of the depression, from 0.5 to 7 mm (Bitzer at [0037], [0038], [0039], Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the ratio of the maximum depth of the depression in step b) to the maximum depth of the cavity in step e) is 2:3 to 1 to 5.
However, Bitzer teaches the depths of the recesses 42, which are formed as depressions, depending on the desired temperature gradient or temperature profile (Bitzer at [0037], [0038], [0039], Fig. 3). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the ratio of the maximum depth of the depression in step b) to the maximum depth of the cavity in step e) is 2:3 to 1 to 5, 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. One would have been motivated to utilize the ratio of the maximum depth of the depression in step b) to the maximum depth of the cavity in step e) is 2:3 to 1 to 5 for the purpose of allowing for a particular desired temperature gradient or temperature profile (as recognized by Bitzer at [0038]).
As to claim 8: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Bitzer further reads on the claimed wherein the depression has a bottom surface which continuously descends from its rim down to its lowest point (Bitzer at Fig. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, further read on the claimed wherein the portion unit has at least two receiving chambers (Grebe at FIG. 1), wherein the heating device has a number of depressions corresponding to the number of receiving chambers (Bitzer at [0036]), 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 (see Grebe and Bitzer as combined in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 11: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Bitzer further reads on the claimed wherein the surface of the heating device is coated at least in portions in the region of the depression (Bitzer at [0029], [0030]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Bitzer further reads on the claimed wherein the surface of the heating device is coated over the entire surface in the region of the depression(s) (Bitzer at [0029], [0030]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 13: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe further discloses the claimed wherein the film is located in step c) below the heating device and above the deep-drawing die used in step e), and the distance between the surface of the heating device and the surface of the deep-drawing die is less than 10 mm (Grebe at FIG. 1, FIG. 2 – the heater 17A is apart of the upper mold 17 and therefore less than 10mm).
[AltContent: rect]Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe and Bitzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier et al. (US 2021/0102147; herein referred to as Meier).
As to claim 10 and claim 14: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe further discloses the claimed film is brought into contact with the heating device only on one side in step b) (Grebe at FIG. 1). Though, Grebe modified by Bitzer, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the film is selected from the group of water-soluble films; and wherein the first film is a water-soluble film.
However, Meier teaches a portion unit of a cleaning agent that has an appealing, modern design and has chamber walls formed from a water-soluble material, in particular a water-soluble film (Meier at [0010], [0025]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a water-soluble film, since it has been held to be within ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to utilize a water-soluble film for the purpose of forming a portion unit having an appealing, modern design that can be placed in a washing machine or dishwasher without the packaging having to be removed beforehand (as recognized by Meier at [0010], [0025]).
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebe and Bitzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Medwed (US 4,650,967; herein referred to as Medwed) and further in view of Meier et al. (US 2021/0102147; herein referred to as Meier).
As to claim 15: Grebe and Bitzer teach the method of claim 1. Grebe, modified by Bitzer, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the heating device comprises a metallic surface and the metallic surface of the heating device has a temperature in the range of 23 to 150°C.
However, Medwed teaches a heating apparatus for heating sheet material before the forming process (Medwed at Title). Medwed further teaches the surface 16 of the stationary heating plate 15 being metal (Medwed at column 3, lines 1-21; column 4, lines 19-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a heating device comprising a metallic surface as such is known in the art of thermoforming given the discussion of Medwed above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Grebe, modified thus far, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed the surface of the heating device has a temperature in the range of 23 to 150°C. However, Meier teaches a portion unit of a cleaning agent that has an appealing, modern design and has chamber walls formed from a water-soluble material, in particular a water-soluble film (Meier at [0010], [0025]). Meier further teaches portion units c! and C2 being produced from two film portions in a double chamber cavity at a thermoforming temperature of 102oC (Meier at [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a thermoforming temperature of 102oC as such is known in the art of thermoforming given the discussion of Meier above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743