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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome the drawing objections previously set forth in the non-final rejection mailed 02/19/2026.
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.
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 against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur (US-2008308961) in view of Hegel (DE-19828004), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 1, Kotzur teaches:
A method for test pressing pellets in a rotary press ([0004] and [0022]), comprising:
providing a rotary press with a rotationally driven rotor comprising ([0019]; Fig. 1, #10),
upper and lower press punches ([0031] – [0044]; Fig. 2, #44),
an upper and lower punch guide configured to guide the upper and lower press punches, respectively ([0031]; Fig. 2, #40 and #42),
a die plate positioned between the punch guides ([0031] – [0033]; Fig. 2, #12) and defining a plurality of receptacles ([0028] and [0034]; Fig. 2, #16), wherein the upper and lower press punches interact with the plurality of receptacles of the die plate in a production mode of the rotary press ([0034]),
a filling apparatus configured to fill a material into the receptacles in the production mode of the rotary press ([0029] - [0034]; Fig. 2, #20 and #36),
a pressing apparatus comprising upper and lower pressing tools configured to interact with the upper and lower press punches in the production mode of the rotary press to press the material in the receptacles into pellets ([0031] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #30);
depositing material to be pressed into one of the plurality of receptacles of a die plate ([0029] – [0034]);
moving the upper and a lower press punch into a test pressing position such that the upper press punch is positioned in an impact area of an upper test pressing tool of a test pressing apparatus of the rotary press, and the lower press punch is positioned in an impact area of a lower test pressing tool of the test pressing apparatus ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]); and
advancing the upper and the lower test pressing tools towards each other, so that the upper press punch and the lower press punch are pressed towards each other in the receptacle of the die plate by the upper and lower test pressing tools to press the material filled into the receptacle into a test pellet ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]).
Kotzur does not teach:
advancing the upper and the lower test pressing tools towards each other via a test pressing drive of the test pressing apparatus while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary.
However, Hegel (DE-19828004), in a similar field of endeavor, a method for pressing pellets, teaches:
advancing the upper and the lower test pressing tools towards each other via a test pressing drive of the test pressing apparatus while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary ([0013] – [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the advancing of the upper and lower pressing tools of Kotzur to incorporate the teachings of Hegel and advance them through a pressing drive while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary. The purpose, as stated by Hegel, being that the presses can be operated with a higher output capacity with significantly reduced pressing force. Compared to conventional presses, this design achieves reduced wear, higher productivity, and reliable tool protection ([0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
determining at least one of a pressing force ([0023] and [0034]) and a parameter of the pressing force during the test pressing ([0037] and [0041]); and
moving apart the upper and lower test pressing tools when at least one of a predetermined pressing force and a predetermined value of the parameter of the pressing force is reached ([0022] – [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
wherein the parameter of the pressing force comprises at least one of: (i) a web height ([0037] and [0041]); (ii) a pressing force curve; and (iii) a pressure holding time at a predetermined pressing force.
Regarding claim 4, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 4 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
further comprising setting the rotary press for the production mode based on the at least one of the pressing force and the parameter of the pressing force ([0022] – [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
further comprising installing only the upper and lower punches to the one of the plurality of receptacles during the test pressing ([0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
moving the upper and lower test pressing tools apart by the test pressing drive after a first test pressing process ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]); and
moving the upper and lower test pressing tools towards by means of the test pressing drive so that the upper press punch (14) and the lower press punch (16) are pressed towards each other in the one of the plurality of receptacles (12) of the die plate (10) by the upper and lower test pressing tools for additionally pressing the material in the one of the plurality of receptacles (12) into a test pellet ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Kotzur teaches:
A rotary press with a rotationally driven rotor comprising ([0019]; Fig. 1, #10):
upper and lower press punches ([0031] – [0044]; Fig. 2, #44);
an upper and lower punch guide configured to guide the upper and lower press punches ([0031]; Fig. 2, #40 and #42);
a die plate positioned between the punch guides ([0031] – [0033]; Fig. 2, #12) and defining a plurality of receptacles ([0028] and [0034]; Fig. 2, #16), wherein the upper and lower press punches interact with the plurality of receptacles of the die plate in a production mode of the rotary press ([0034]);
a filling apparatus configured to deposit a material to be pressed into the plurality of receptacles in the production mode of the rotary press ([0029] - [0034]; Fig. 2, #20 and #36);
a pressing apparatus including upper and lower pressing tools that are configured to interact with the upper and lower press punches in the production mode of the rotary press to press the material in the receptacles into pellets ([0031] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #30);
a test pressing apparatus comprising an upper test pressing tool and a lower test pressing tool, wherein for a test pressing, the upper test pressing tool is configured to interact with an upper press punch (14) assigned to one of the plurality of receptacles, and the lower test pressing tool is configured to interact with a lower press punch assigned to the one of the plurality of receptacles ([0007] and [0021] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #30); and
driving the upper test pressing tool and the lower test pressing tool towards each other during the test pressing so that the upper press punch and the lower press punch are advanced towards each other in the one of the plurality of receptacles by the upper and lower test pressing tools so as to press the material the one of the plurality of receptacles into a test pellet ([0007] and [0021] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #52).
Kotzur does not teach:
a test pressing drive configured to drive the upper test pressing tool and the lower test pressing tool towards each other during the test pressing while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary.
However, Hegel (DE-19828004), in a similar field of endeavor, a rotary press for pressing pellets, teaches:
a test pressing drive configured to drive the upper test pressing tool and the lower test pressing tool towards each other during the test pressing while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary ([0013] – [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the advancing of the upper and lower pressing tools of Kotzur to incorporate the teachings of Hegel and advance them through a pressing drive while the rotationally driven rotor is stationary. The purpose, as stated by Hegel, being that the presses can be operated with a higher output capacity with significantly reduced pressing force. Compared to conventional presses, this design achieves reduced wear, higher productivity, and reliable tool protection ([0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 12 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
wherein the rotary press comprises a control apparatus configured to control the test pressing drive ([0040] – [0041]; Fig. 3, #60).
Regarding claim 13, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 13 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
wherein the upper and lower test pressing tools are formed by the upper and lower pressing tools of the pressing apparatus ([0007] and [0021] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #30).
Regarding claim 14, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 14 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
wherein the upper and lower test pressing tools comprise test pressing tools formed separately from the pressing apparatus. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the upper and lower test pressing tools from the pressing apparatus by making them separable, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results. The fact that the previous claim, claim 13, has the two parts integrated, shows that there is no patentable weight to separating the parts and unexpected results would not occur from changing the parts from being integrated to separated.
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.
Regarding claim 15, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 15 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
wherein the upper and lower pressing tools comprise upper and lower compression rollers ([0007] and [0021] – [0041]; Fig. 2, #30).
Regarding claim 16, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 16 depends on. Kotzur further teaches:
drive the upper and a lower press punch into a test pressing position such that the upper press punch is positioned in an impact area of an upper test pressing tool of the test pressing apparatus, and such that the lower press punch is positioned in an impact area of a lower test pressing tool of the test pressing apparatus ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]); and
advance the upper and the lower test pressing tools towards each other by means of a test pressing drive of the test pressing apparatus so that the upper press punch and the lower press punch are pressed towards each other in the one of the plurality of receptacles by the upper and lower test pressing tools to press the material in the one of the plurality of receptacles into a test pellet ([0007] and [0022] - [0041]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur (US-2008308961) in view of Hegel (DE-19828004), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hinzpeter (EP-1473145), using the attached original documents and translations.
Regarding claim 6, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not explicitly teach manually depositing the material in the receptacle. However, Hinzpeter, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for making and testing pellet production in a rotary press, teaches:
further comprising manually depositing the material to be pressed during the test pressing into the one of the plurality of receptacles ([0012] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the depositing of material to be pressed of Kotzur in view of Hegel to incorporate the teachings of Hinzpeter and manually deposit the material. The purpose, as stated by Hinzpeter, being when performing a pressing test, the rotor 10 is brought into a position in which a lower punch 32 is in filling position, as indicated by 40 in Fig. 2. Now, with the rotor 10 stationary, the die bore 16 is filled with pressing material using a suitable filling device or by hand ([0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach performing multiple test pressings and varying the drive speed of the pressing drive. However, Hinzpeter, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for making and testing pellet production in a rotary press, teaches:
performing multiple test pressings ([0024] – [0027]); and
varying at least one of a pressing force curve and a punch path curve by varying a drive speed of the test pressing drive ([0016] and [0024] – [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressing of Kotzur in view of Hegel to incorporate the teachings of Hinzpeter and perform multiple test pressings and vary the drive speed of the pressing drive. The purpose, as stated by Hinzpeter, being that all process-relevant settings can be adjusted and tested in the pressing trial, such as speed, pressing force, tablet thickness, tablet hardness, tablet weight, etc. ([0016]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur (US-2008308961) in view of Hegel (DE-19828004), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (U.S. Patent No. 4030868).
Regarding claim 8, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, but does not teach setting the test pressing drive to produce a specific force curve. However, Williams, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for testing the force applied to making tablets in a rotary press, teaches:
further comprising setting a drive speed of the test pressing drive to produce at least one of: (i) a sinusoidal pressing force curve (Col. 5, line 24 – Col. 6, line 38; Figs. 1-4); (ii) a sawtooth-shaped pressing force curve; (iii) a rectangular pressing force curve; and (iv) a punch path curve during one or more test pressings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressing drive of Kotzur in view of Hegel to incorporate the teachings of Williams and produce a specific force curve. The purpose, as stated by Williams, being so that only tablets that satisfy predetermined tabletting force criteria are included in the accepted production batch of tablets (Col. 3, lines 54 – 57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur (US-2008308961) in view of Hegel (DE-19828004), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US-20140199427).
Regarding claim 11, Kotzur in view of Hegel teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the test pressing drive comprising one of an electric and hydraulic drive. However, Schmidt, in a similar field of endeavor, a rotary press for making tablets, teaches:
wherein the test pressing drive comprises one of an electric ([0004]) and hydraulic drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressing drive of Kotzur in view of Hegel to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt and have it be an electric or hydraulic drive. The purpose, as stated by Schmidt, being so that a rotary press is known for instance from DE 10 2007 034 359 B3. The control- and power-related components for controlling the operating components, for instance a rotational drive of the rotor of the press, and for the supply of the operating components with electric power ([0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under Kotzur (US-2008308961) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kotzur (US-2008308961) in view of Hegel (DE-19828004).
Applicant has added new limitations to the independent claims that add structural limitations to the claims. The additional of a “rotationally driven rotor” is a structural limitation that changes the claims, therefore this rejection is a final rejection as necessitated by amendments.
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 Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights