Prior art — US Patent 7670612

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in US Patent 7,670,612

Below is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited by the applicant and the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of US patent 7,670,612. This analysis focuses on the potential for each reference to anticipate the independent claims of the '612 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires a single prior art reference to disclose every element of a claimed invention.

The independent claims of interest are:

Claim 1: A multi-compartment capsule containing at least two different ingredients (selected from nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals) in at least two different physical states (e.g., liquid, solid, gas).
Claim 11: A method of delivering the capsule of Claim 1 by oral administration.

1. U.S. Patent 6,214,376 B1

Full Citation: De-Vriendt, "Compartmented capsule," U.S. Patent 6,214,376 B1, assigned to Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.
Dates: Filed: September 23, 1998; Issued: April 10, 2001.
Brief Description: This patent discloses a soft gelatin capsule containing at least two compartments separated by a partition. The compartments are designed to hold different fill materials which may be physically or chemically incompatible. The specification explicitly teaches that these fill materials can be in different physical states, stating, "In a preferred embodiment, one of said at least two fill materials is a liquid and another of said at least two fill materials is a solid" (Column 3, lines 1-3). The patent also mentions vitamins as a possible fill material (Column 5, line 14).
Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
- This patent appears to teach every element of Claim 1. It describes a capsule with "at least two compartments" (fulfilling the "at least two receiving chambers" element). It discloses that the compartments can contain different ingredients, including vitamins, in different physical states ("liquid" and "solid").
- As the patent describes a soft gelatin capsule, a standard oral dosage form, it inherently discloses the method of oral administration recited in Claim 11.

2. U.S. Patent 6,482,434 B1

Full Citation: Lledo, "Nutritional supplement formulation," U.S. Patent 6,482,434 B1, assigned to Bio-Nutrix, Inc.
Dates: Filed: March 20, 2001; Issued: November 19, 2002.
Brief Description: This reference describes a dosage form designed to stabilize the dietary supplement S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) by physically separating it from other ingredients. The patent explicitly discloses using a "two compartment capsule" or a "capsule in a capsule" design. It specifically teaches filling one compartment with a solid tablet of SAMe and the other compartment with a liquid or semi-solid containing a second ingredient, such as "a vitamin and/or a mineral" (Column 2, lines 60-67).
Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
- This patent is highly relevant and appears to anticipate Claim 1. It discloses a structure with two chambers ("two compartment capsule"). The ingredients are explicitly identified as "dietary supplement," "vitamin," and "mineral," directly corresponding to the language in Claim 1 of the '612 patent. Furthermore, it explicitly discloses placing these ingredients in different physical states (a "solid tablet" and a "liquid or semi-solid").
- The disclosure of a capsule for delivering nutritional supplements makes oral administration the only intended and obvious method of use, thus anticipating Claim 11.

3. U.S. Patent 4,738,852

Full Citation: Fraipont, "Hard gelatin capsule for the controlled release of active substances," U.S. Patent 4,738,852, assigned to S.T.P. Pharma.
Dates: Filed: July 2, 1986; Issued: April 19, 1988.
Brief Description: This patent discloses a hard gelatin capsule divided into two distinct compartments by a separating plug. The design allows for the combination of incompatible substances or substances requiring different release profiles. The patent clearly states that the compartments can hold ingredients in different physical states, for example, "the first compartment contains a liquid or pasty phase... and the second compartment contains a solid phase constituted by a powder, microgranules or minitablets" (Column 2, lines 4-8).
Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
- This reference strongly teaches the structural elements of Claim 1, namely a capsule with two chambers containing ingredients in different physical states (liquid/pasty and solid). The primary difference lies in the terminology used for the ingredients. The '852 patent refers to "active substances" and "medicaments," whereas Claim 1 of the '612 patent specifies "nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals." While a vitamin can be considered an "active substance," this difference in language might prevent a strict finding of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, it is a very strong reference for a potential obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
- It would likewise be a strong reference against the method of Claim 11.

4. U.S. Patent 5,679,376

Full Citation: Sheth et al., "Dosage form for delivering a drug," U.S. Patent 5,679,376, assigned to Alza Corporation.
Dates: Filed: August 25, 1995; Issued: October 21, 1997.
Brief Description: This patent discloses a dosage form, such as a capsule, comprising at least two compartments separated by a partition for delivering incompatible agents. The abstract states, "The drug formulation and the drug-protective formulation can be in the form of a liquid, semi-solid or solid..." The invention is intended for oral administration and is designed to protect a drug from degradation in the gastrointestinal tract.
Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
- Similar to the '852 patent, this reference discloses the key structural concept of a two-compartment capsule for delivering substances in different physical states (Claim 1). The term "drug" is used to describe the active ingredient. Whether this term inherently includes the "nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals" of Claim 1 is a point of potential distinction. An argument could be made that a vitamin used for a therapeutic purpose is a drug, but a vitamin sold as a dietary supplement is not. This ambiguity makes this reference more suited for an obviousness argument rather than direct anticipation of Claim 1.
- The reference clearly describes an oral dosage form, making it highly relevant to the method of Claim 11.