Detailed Final Action
Introduction
1. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
2. This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/005,684 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘684 or the instant application), filed April 7, 2020, which is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,058,485 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘485 or the original patent), issued August 28, 2018 on U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 15/122,767 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘767 or the parent application), entitled “IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO BLISTER PACKAGE COMPLIANCE”, filed August 31, 2016.1 The parent application is a 371 of PCT/AU2015/000103, filed February 26, 2015, which claims the benefit of Australian Patent Application No. 2014900729, filed on March 3, 2014.
3. With regard to litigation involving ‘485, see Litigation Search Report of record. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of ‘485 itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any other previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
4. A response was received on December 15, 2025. The response presented amendments to claims, the specification and the drawings.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 5-6 and 9-12 are pending.
Claims 5-6 and 9-12 are examined.
Claims 5-6 and 9-12 are rejected/objected to as set forth infra.
Priority
6. Based upon a review of the instant application, the Examiner finds that Patent Owner is claiming benefit to U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 10,058,485 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘485 or the original patent), issued August 28, 2018 on U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 15/122,767 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘767 or the parent application), entitled “IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO BLISTER PACKAGE COMPLIANCE”, filed August 31, 2016. The parent application is a 371 of PCT/AU2015/000103, filed February 26, 2015, which claims the benefit of Australian Patent Application No. 2014900729, filed on March 3, 2014. 2
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
7. Because the effective filing date of claims of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, see prior paragraph, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply thereto. See also paragraph 1, supra.
Reissue Applications
Interview
8. Applicant failed to file a complete or accurate record of the substance of the December 15, 2025 interview. (See MPEP 713.04 as well as the interview summary PTOL-413/314b “Applicant recordation instructions”.)
35 U.S.C. 251
9. Claims 5-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being broadened in a reissue application more than two years from the grant of the original patent in a reissue application. See MPEP 1412.03, IV.
A claim is broader in scope than the original patent claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects.
Claims 5, 9 and 11 of the ‘485 patent issued on August 28, 2018. Claims 5, 9 and 11 (below) adding the limitations of the claims from which they depended were filed in this reissue application on August 28, 2020.
The aspects of these claims no longer included in claims 5, 9 and 11 now filed on December 15, 2025 are shown below in bold:
5. (Currently Amended) A holder for storing a blister package between times of use, comprising a transparent pocket in the holder, adapted to receive and hold a blister package, and a manually-releasable device for retaining the blister package in the transparent pocket in the holder; an array of sensing elements located in the holder at positions corresponding to respective positions of blisters of the blister package when the blister package is held at a predetermined position in the pocket; an electrical circuit monitoring the sensing elements and responding to an absence of light falling on the sensing elements to indicate the presence of an unopened blister in the blister package; a memory in the electrical circuit for holding data significant of a prescribed medication plan; a comparator in the electrical circuit, connected to the sensing elements and to the memory, and arranged to respond to the detection of the unopened blister by producing a non-compliance signal to an indicator capable of being interrogated when required; a timer providing information of a time at which an unopened blister is detected: a store in the circuit adapted to provide from the outputs of the timer and the indicator a non-compliance signal significant of the time an unopened blister is detected and its position on the blister package; and a switch located in the holder and arranged to prevent a compliance check from being carried out unless a blister package is correctly positioned in the pocket; and further including an additional, variable light source operable to provide additional light inside the pocket if the prevailing ambient light is insufficient for a compliance check to be carried out.
9. (Currently Amended) A holder for storing a blister package between times of use, comprising a transparent pocket in the holder, adapted to receive and hold a blister package, and a manually-releasable device for retaining the blister package in the transparent pocket in the holder; an array of sensing elements located in the holder at positions corresponding to respective positions of blisters of the blister package when the blister package is held at a predetermined position in the pocket; an electrical circuit monitoring the sensing elements and responding to an absence of light falling on the sensing elements to indicate the presence of an unopened blister in the blister package where the electrical circuit is embedded in the holder behind the pocket: a memory in the electrical circuit for holding data significant of a prescribed medication plan; a comparator in the electrical circuit, connected to the sensing elements and to the memory, and arranged to respond to the detection of the unopened blister by producing a non-compliance signal to an indicator capable of being interrogated when required; a timer providing information of a time at which an unopened blister is detected; and a store in the circuit adapted to provide from the outputs of the timer and the indicator a non-compliance signal significant of the tine an unopened blister is detected and its position on the blister package; and further including an additional, variable light source operable to provide additional light inside the pocket if the prevailing ambient light is insufficient for a compliance check to be carried out.
11. (Currently Amended) A holder for storing a blister package between times of use, comprising a transparent pocket in the holder, adapted to receive and hold a blister package, and a manually-releasable device for retaining the blister package in the transparent pocket in the holder; an array of sensing elements located in the holder at positions corresponding to respective positions of blisters of the blister package when the blister package is held at a predetermined position in the pocket; an electrical circuit monitoring the sensing elements and responding to an absence of light falling on the sensing elements to indicate the presence of an unopened blister in the blister package; a memory in the electrical circuit for holding data significant of a prescribed medication plan; a comparator in the electrical circuit, connected to the sensing elements and to the memory, and arranged to respond to the detection of the unopened blister by producing a non-compliance signal to an indicator capable of being interrogated when required; a timer providing information of a time at which an unopened blister is detected; and a store in the circuit adapted to provide from the outputs of the timer and the indicator a non-compliance signal significant of the time an unopened blister is detected and its position on the blister package; and further including an additional, variable light source operable to provide additional light inside the pocket if the prevailing ambient light is insufficient for a compliance check to be carried out.
A broadened claim can be presented within two years from the grant of the original patent in a reissue application. In addition, a broadened claim can be presented after two years from the grant of the original patent in a broadening reissue application which was filed within two years from the grant. Where any intent to broaden is unequivocally indicated in the reissue application within the two years from the patent grant, a broadened claim can subsequently be presented in the reissue after the two year period. (Note: A statement that "the patent is wholly or partly inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than applicant had a right to claim" is NOT an unequivocal statement of an intent to broaden.) Thus, a broadened claim may be presented in a reissue application after the two years, even though the broadened claim presented after the two years is different than the broadened claim presented within the two years.
However, neither the remarks nor the declaration filed August 8, 2020 unequivocally indicated an intent to broaden the reissue application within the two years from the patent grant. See also the declaration of November 5, 2021.
10. The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The oath or declaration must properly identify at least one error under 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as a basis for the reissue (37 CFR 1.175(a)). Specific changes or amendments to the claims must be identified. Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error. If new claims are presented, their difference from the original claims must be pointed out. See MPEP § 1414. If the reissue is a broadening reissue, a claim that the application seeks to broaden must be identified. (Note: A statement that “the patent is wholly or partly inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than applicant had a right to claim” is NOT an unequivocal statement of an intent to broaden.) Furthermore the error that supports the reissue is not limited to an error in the claims but may exist elsewhere in the patent (e.g., in the specification, drawings, etc.) as long as the error is an error that causes the patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
In the declaration filed November 5, 2021 it was set forth that the error was that “this patent should only have issued with Claims 5-12.” “It was agreed to limit the claimed invention to the substance of the original Claims 5-6.” However, for the reasons discussed in paragraph 9, such error is no longer applicable since the claimed invention is no longer being limited to the substance of the original claims 5-6 or claims 5-12 as issued.
11. Claims 5-6 and 9-12 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Drawings
12. The drawings were received on December 15, 2025. These drawings are not accepted. Three sheets of drawings labelled 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 showing Figs. 1-4, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively were filed. There were previously four sheets of drawings 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4 showings Figs. 1-4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively. Accordingly, it appears the drawings as submitted are cancelling Fig. 5 and page 2/4. However, since such cancellation was not explicitly described in the remarks, it is unclear what is being done with Fig. 5 on sheet 2/4. The cancellation of such Fig./sheet would raise a number of issues. If the Figure/sheet has not been cancelled, the numeration of the pages is now incorrect. The proposed drawings filed with the 12/15/25 response do correct the discrepancy between Fig. 6 and 7 with respect to the line from 131 corrected. However the proposed Figs. 1-3 also add element 13 back without reincluding the reference character in the description, e.g. paragraphs at 3:45 and 4:23 amended by the 12/19/24 response. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Also while the response explains how the drawings filed 12/15/2025 differ from those filed 8/21/2024 (e.g. apparently the addition of features similar to those previously denoted 137 at the bottom of Figures 6 and 7 as filed 8/21/2024 are now also located in the vicinity of the guides as shown emphasized on pages 14-15 of the response), those additional features are not, at the very least, denoted, e.g., as “137”. See also the following paragraph and the Response to Arguments section below with regards to Figures 6-7.
13. The drawings are still objected to because: for the reasons discussed above, the 12/15/2025 Figures are not approved. Accordingly, a variable light source operable to provide additional light inside the pocket if the prevailing ambient light is insufficient for a compliance check to be carried out, described as element 137, in combination with the other claimed features of claims 5-6 and 9-12 still must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See also the Response to Arguments section below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 and 1.84 are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
14. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the 12/15/2025 response submitted amendments to the paragraph at col. 2, line 9 and inserted two paragraphs thereafter. The paragraph at col. 2, line 9 was presented without the amendments submitted December 19, 2024 except for one. In other words, the indicator is again described as capable of interrogation (rather than the store) and therefore again describes those features differently than those features are now claimed in the claims as well as in another part of the specification, e.g. cols. 3-5.
Appropriate correction is required.
15. A copy of the printed patent in double column format including page 1 was submitted with the 12/15/2025 response.
Claim Objections
16. Claims 11-12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 5-6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(11). Therefore, unless Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term, see MPEP §211l.0l(IV), or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
When the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a claim:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. The art of record in this application does not teach or obviously suggest the subject matter of claims 5-6 and 9-12.
Response to Arguments
18. The Remarks on pages 5 and 11-17 have been considered in their entirety.
With regard to the discussion of the claim amendments, and claim rejections under 35 USC 251 on pages 11-13, as discussed above in paragraphs 9-11, this reissue application was filed on August 28, 2020 exactly two years after its’ issue. Neither the remarks nor the declaration also filed August 8, 2020 indicated unequivocally an intent to broaden the reissue application and thereby, within the two years from the patent grant. As shown in paragraph 9, the now filed independent claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims because they are broader in a respect even though they may be narrower in other respects, i.e. no longer claim an indicator capable of being interrogated when required. The language “capable of being interrogated when required” limits the indicator to having such ability, i.e. the ability to be interrogated when require, i.e. does not constitute “non-limiting statement[s] of intended use”, see response at page 112. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
As an initial mater regarding the remarks on pages 12-14 with respect to the drawings, i.e. correction of Fig. 6 and differences between the currently filed drawings and those filed 8/21/2024, as acknowledged above in paragraph 12 above, the proposed drawings do show correction of Figure 6 and that the drawings filed 12/15/2025 are different than those of 8/21/24. However, as also discussed in paragraph 12, the proposed drawings also raise a number of new issues. Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth in paragraph 12, the proposed drawings filed 12/15/2025 were not accepted.
With regard to Figures 6-7, the independent claims require “[a] holder…comprising: a transparent pocket in the holder, adapted to receive and hold a blister pack… and a variable light source operable to provide additional light inside the pocket if prevailing ambient light is insufficient for a compliance check to be carried out.” and the dependent claims require the holder include “transparent portions adapted to transmit ambient light into the pocket, and also transmit the additional light provided by the variable light source into the pocket.” The response first discusses the specification in column 6, lines 11-22 and 40-46 on pages 14-15, which states that “Adjustable, artificial light sources are provided in the holder 120 to provide, when necessary, additional light to supplement the available ambient light. This additional light is transmitted from the light sources by way of the transparent top plate 128 and the guide strips 130 to the blistered side of the package 125.” and “This additional light is transmitted by way of the transparent top-plate 128 of the holder and the four transparent strips 130 to the interior of the pocket 60.” (Emphasis added.) Next the response discusses the terminology “by the way of” on page 153, i.e. “by the route through” or “via”.4 Based on this the response concludes:
The specification expressly describes that light (137) [sic] provided by adjustable artificial light sources is transmitted to the blistered side of the package and into the pocket through specific transparent structural elements of the holder, namely the transparent top plate (128) and the guide strips (130)….
…
Thus, the written description is explicit as to how and where the additional light travels: from internal light sources located within the holder, through the transparent top plate and guide strips, and into the interior of the pocket containing the blister package.
The amended drawings now depict exactly this disclosed light path. In amended FIGS. 6 and 7, the variable light source (137) is shown within the holder (120) and positioned such that light propagates using the transparent top plate (128) and along the transparent guide strips (130) into the pocket (60), where the blister package (125) is received. This depiction visually corresponds to the specification's express description of the route taken by the additional light.
…The specification describes that light is conveyed, at least in part, toward the blister package and the interior of the pocket through the transparent top plate and guide strips.
Accordingly, the amended drawings do not introduce a new illumination mechanism or relocate the light source in an unsupported manner. Instead, they render the disclosed transmission pathway, showing light traveling by the route through the transparent plate (128) and guide strips (130) into the pocket (60), as is described in the specification.
Therefore, amended FIGS. 6 and 7 are fully consistent with the original specification because they:
depict the variable light source (137) within the holder (120);
show light transmission by way of the transparent top plate (128) and guide strips (130);
illustrate illumination of the blistered side of the package (125) and the interior of the pocket (60); and
do so in a manner expressly described in the specification.
Accordingly, the amended FIGS. 6 and 7 accurately reflect the original disclosure and do not add new matter.
While it is agreed that the proposed Figs. 6-7 include rows of dashed circles(?)/cylinders(?) denoted 137 shown as not being exterior of the holder and relative to other features (e.g. plate 128 and guides 130 which guides are also shown dashed), they do not show where the sources are such that “light travel[s] by the route through the transparent plate (128) and guide strips (130) into the pocket (60)” or “show light transmission by way of the transparent top plate (128) and guide strips (130). In other words, is the response asserting the Figures show the light sources are embedded in the plate 128 and guides 130 such that light travels therethrough/by the way of. If so, this is not clear from the drawings. Therefore, the remarks are not persuasive and the objection is maintained.
Finally, The remarks on pages 16-17 address the specification with regard to the paragraph added to col. 1, line 3 and claim rejections under 35 US 112. These issues have not been maintained. It is noted that the response does not indicate why the two paragraphs were added to col. 2, line 29, i.e. in the Summary of the Invention section. The paragraphs are different then the claims as now filed, i.e. the claimed invention also include, e.g., a switch. Note MPEP 608.01(d).
Conclusion
Finality
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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,058,485 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Inquiries:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karin M Reichle whose telephone number is (571)272-4936. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00-6:00 M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
All correspondence relating to this proceeding may be submitted via:
Electronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii) states that correspondence (except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be considered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating the date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.
/Karin Reichle/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The term of the patent was extended or adjusted by 16 days.
2 It is noted that the entire invention must be supported (per 35 USC 112) in a single document relied upon for benefit of filing date.
3 See PTO-892 of the 4/22/24 non-final Office Action and the accompanying non-patent literature.
4 Therefore as set forth also in the last Office Action the specification in light of such definition sets forth “Adjustable, artificial light sources are provided in the holder 120 to provide, when necessary, additional light to supplement the available ambient light. This additional light is transmitted from the light sources by route through or via the transparent top plate 128 and the guide strips 130 to the blistered side of the package 125.” and “This additional light is transmitted by route through or via the transparent top-plate 128 of the holder and the four transparent strips 130 to the interior of the pocket 60.” (emphasis added.)