DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to applicant’s response filed 12/8/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 21, 23-30, 32-35, and 37-38 are currently pending; claims 21 and 23-29 have been withdrawn; claims 1-2, 4-8, 30, 32-35, and 37-38 are being examined.
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 1-2, 4-8, 30, 32-35, and 37-38 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the first and second package layers “comprising a metallic foil material”. This limitation is indefinite due to a lack of sufficient disclosure. The words “metal” and “metallic” do not appear in the specification. Paragraph [0123] of the published application describes including an aluminum foil in the first package layer, but does not appear to broadly generalize for “metallic foils”, and does not recite any metals in the context of the second package layer. Thus, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “metallic foil” are when considering both the first and second package layers. At best, the disclosure appears to support the first package layer comprising aluminum foil ([0123]) and the second package layer comprising a foil ([0114]).
Examiner notes that in the attachment provided in the PTOL-303 dated 11/28/2025, the term “foil” is taken to mean “a thin piece of material”, and not being constrained to thin metallic materials. This interpretation appears to be supported by the instant disclosure which states “thinner and/or thermally sensitive materials (e.g., foils) may be used” ([0109]), suggesting thinness and/or thermal sensitivity is what defines a foil, rather than a metallic constitution.
For examination efficiency, Applicant is being afforded the benefit of the doubt regarding “metallic foils”, and the claim limitations are addressed as submitted. However, Examiner retains the right to maintain and make final these 112 rejections should Applicant not show sufficient support for metallic foils in the application as filed.
Claims dependent on claim 1 are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 30, 32-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman US 5,711,416 in view of Tanaka et al. US 6,568,533 and Wolak et al. US 2004/0146226.
Regarding claim 1:
Bauman teaches a contact lens package (FIGS. 6-10), comprising:
a first package layer (24a-24c);
a second package layer (22a-22c) defining a lens receiving area (38a-38c) between the first and second package layers;
a circular seal (P1 + P2 in annotated FIG. 9 below) between the first and second package layers extending around a periphery of the lens receiving area, the seal comprising:
a first seal portion (P1) extending around a majority of the periphery;
a second seal portion (P2) extending around a minority of the periphery; wherein the first seal portion and the second seal portion, complete a seal around an entirety of the lens receiving area configured to retain a lens and a lens solution (col. 2, lines 57-60).
Bauman does not teach the second seal portion having a different sealing property than the first seal portion.
Tanaka however, discloses a similar package (FIGS. 1(A) and 1(G), package 1) for holding an object (7) between two foils (2), having a continual circumferential seal comprising: a first heat seal portion (9/10) defining a first boundary portion of the boundary of the object receiving area, the first heat seal portion peelably sealing the first package layer to the second package layer; a second heat seal portion (11) defining a second boundary portion of the boundary of object receiving area and sealing the first package layer to the second package layer, the first heat seal portion and the second heat seal portion together completing a continual circumferential seal with the first boundary portion and the second boundary portion together establishing the boundary of the object receiving area; wherein the second seal portion has different sealing properties than the first seal portion (col. 13, lines 9-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill In the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the lens package of Bauman, by having the second seal portion have a different sealing property than the first seal portion, as taught by Tanaka, since this provides “a peelable package which can easily open up to a predetermined position in an opening direction with a peeling strength abruptly increased at the predetermined position and stop the opening operation at the predetermined position with assuredness, and which can be put into practice readily and inexpensively" (col. 3, lines 46-52). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this modification would allow the package to be easily opened and disposed of as a single piece.
The combination of Bauman and Tanaka does not teach at least one of the first package layer or the second package layer has a thickness less than 30 microns.
Wolak discloses a related peelable package, teaching “films may have any thickness suitable for the desired properties of the film. Films used in packages containing a flowable product, typically have a thickness ranging from about 1 mil (25 micron)…” ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the package of the combination of Bauman and Tanaka, by having at least one of the first package layer or the second package layer having a thickness less than 30 microns, as suggested by Wolak, since this would be suitable for packages containing liquids such as Bauman’s saline solution, and would minimize the amount of packaging materials being used.
While the combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak does not explicitly teach the first and second package layers comprising a metallic foil material, Bauman discloses “The closure or cover may be a metallic foil using an adhesive or a foil with a laminated layer or coating of resin which enables heat sealing to provide a suitable bond to the flange” (col. 4, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to try for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify both the first and second package layers, by utilizing metallic foils with adhesives or resin coatings for both, since Bauman suggests doing “enables heat sealing to provide a suitable bond”. In the case of the second package layer, this modification may also lead to increased structural rigidity over the resin alone.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first seal portion comprises a releasable seal between the first and second package layers, and the second seal portion comprises a permanent seal between the first and second package layers and the contact lens package further comprises a peel release portion (Tanaka, 3) configured to provide an easier release of the first seal portion when separating the first package layer from the second package layer (Tanaka, col. 13, lines 9-25; col. 3, lines 46-52)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the second seal portion provides a greater seal strength between the first and second package layers than a seal strength provided by the first seal portion (Tanaka, col. 13, lines 9-25; col. 3, lines 46-52).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first seal portion is formed on a first side of the second package layer (Bauman, see FIG. 9 above, left side); wherein the second seal portion is formed on the second side (right side) of the second package layer; and wherein the first side faces a first direction and the second side faces a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (see portions P1 and P2 above).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 5, as discussed above, wherein the first side is contiguous with the second side (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 6, as discussed above, wherein the first package layer includes a peel start (e.g. Bauman, col. 3, lines 33-37; Tanaka 3); wherein the peel start is disposed opposite the second seal portion.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 34, as discussed above, wherein the lens receiving area includes a floor; the floor including a flat base portion (see B in annotated FIG. 9 below), a taper portion (T) extending from the flat base portion towards the peel start thereby narrowing a cross-section of the lens receiving area, and a protrusion (P) formed in the taper portion; the protrusion extending into the lens receiving area.
PNG
media_image2.png
455
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein; the first seal portion is formed on a first side (Bauman, see FIG. 9 above, left side) of the second package layer; the second seal portion is formed on a second side (right side) of the second package layer; the second package layer comprises an insertion gap (e.g. FIG. 9, recessed portion 28c), the insertion gap being defined by a recessed surface of the first side of the second package layer and the second side of the second package layer; and the first seal portion defining the portion of the periphery at or adjacent the insertion gap.
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 30, as discussed above, wherein the first side of the second package layer and the second side of second package layer define substantially orthogonal surfaces of the second package layer (Bauman, see substantially orthogonal portions P1 and P2 above).
Regarding claim 33:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 30, as discussed above, wherein the insertion gap is configured to receive an applicator for introduction of a solution into the lens receiving area (Bauman, area 28c is sized to be filled with a saline solution which would come from some type of applicator; e.g. see 34 in FIG. 5; the gap is capable of receiving an applicator).
Regarding claim 34:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a contact lens (Bauman, 32c) positioned in the lens receiving area, wherein the second package layer is configured to maintain the contact lens in an arrangement with an anterior surface of the contact lens facing the first package layer (shown in FIG. 10, where the concave face of 32c may be defined as an “anterior surface”).
Regarding claim 35:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 8, as discussed above, wherein the protrusion includes a first side (Bauman, to the left of P) and a second side (to the right of P), the first side being deeper relative to the first package layer, than the second side (envisaged in FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 37:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the at least two different sides meet along an edge (Bauman, dashed line in first annotated FIG. 9 above), and the seal completed around the lens receiving area by the first and second seal portions extends over the edge.
Regarding claim 38:
The combination of Bauman, Tanaka, and Wolak teaches the contact lens package of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the lens receiving area is free of gases (Bauman, 38a-38c are free of gases since they are immersed in the saline solution).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are largely moot due to the new grounds of rejection made in this action, necessitated by amendment. See 112 rejections above for additional details.
Regarding the claim 34 remarks, Examiner takes the position that the concave face of 32c may be defined as an “anterior surface” which faces the first package layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, THANH K TRUONG can be reached on 571-272-4472. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731