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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 84-88 and 90-101 are pending. Claims 102-105 were previously canceled.
Specification
The amendment to the specification, filed 27 May 2026, is acceptable and entered.
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. 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.
Claims 98, 99 and 100 include the limitation “a means for lifting”. However, the means for lifting are defined in claim 99 where the mean for lifting include “levers, springs, hinges, pivot arms, folds, mechanical traps, handles and combinations thereof” and will be treated as such.
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.
Claims 84 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalos (US 20170086552).
Regarding claim 84, Michalos teaches a contact lens case (figure 4) comprising a case base (figure 4, reference 10) and a case lid (figure 4, reference 40), wherein the base and lid are sealed to form a cavity (figure 4: the cavity is the space which holds liquid 17 and contact lens 5); a lens support (figure 4, reference 20) for maintaining a contact lens (figure 4, reference 5) in a convex position on the lens support during storage and upon opening the case (figure 4 and paragraph 25); wherein the lens has a peripheral edge (figure 3, peripheral edge defined by the dotted line for contract lens 5) and a lens profile (figure 4: profile defined by lens 5); and the lens support has a profile that does not substantially match the lens profile (figure 4, reference 20: the contact lens 5 is not in contact with the lens support 20 along the peripheral edge of the lens and thus the lens support has a profile that does not substantially match the lens profile), wherein wetted contact between the lens support and the lens is less than the inner surface area of the contact lens (figure 4: the wetted contact occurs in the middle of the contact 5 at the top of 16 since the peripheral edge of the lens 5 is lifted away from the lens support); wherein the contact lens is maintained in an uncompressed state when the case is sealed (figure 4, reference 5: since the lens 5 does not fully contact the support 20 along its entire lens profile, the lens is in an uncompressed state).
Michalos discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the wetted contact between the lens support and the lens is less than about 20mm2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wetted contact between the lens support and the lens being less than about 20mm2, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 90, Michalos teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 84, as shown above, Furthermore, Michalos teaches the lens comprises an apex centered in an optic zone of the lens (figure 4, reference 5 at 16: the optic zone is generally the center portion of the lens), and the lens support further comprises a central support (figure 4, reference 20 at 16) configured to have a height (figure 4), measured from the lens periphery, of not greater than 0.5 mm below the contact lens apex (figure 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights