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 .
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.
Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear if the recited “a drug” is the same as the “a liquid medicine” recited in Claim 6 or if the drug and the liquid medicine are separate elements. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the drug and the liquid medicine are interpreted as the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 2010/0276321) in view of Takahashi (JP 2011-230322; citations to attached English translation).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 4, Nakamura discloses a container multilayered body (10, Fig. 1) that is used to form a container (40, Fig. 5), comprising:
an innermost layer (11, Fig. 1) made of a cyclic polyolefin (¶ [0046-0049]);
an intermediate layer (12, Fig. 1) that is formed so as to be adjacent to the innermost layer (11, Fig. 1) and contains a linear low-density polyethylene produced using a single-site catalyst as a main component (¶ [0046, 0057, 0062]); and
an outer layer (13, Fig. 1).
Nakamura is silent whether the outer layer is made of one of a random polypropylene produced using a single-site catalyst or a polypropylene containing an elastomer, and an outermost layer made of a polypropylene on an outer side of the outer layer, and wherein the elastomer is an olefin-based elastomer or/and a styrene-based elastomer.
Takahashi teaches a medical packaging, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an outer layer (3, Fig. 3; pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10) made of a polypropylene containing a styrene elastomer (pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10), and an outermost layer (4, Fig. 3; pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10) made of a polypropylene (pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10) on an outer side of the outer layer (3, Fig. 3; pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10). These layers allow the packaging to have stable adhesive strength and peel strength even after sterilizing the packaging (pg. 2 paragraphs 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the outer layer of Nakamura for the outer layer and the outermost layer of Takahashi, to improve the adhesive strength and peel strength of the medical packaging even after sterilization (as motivated by Takahashi pg. 2 paragraphs 7 and 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the polyethylene outer layer of Nakamura for the outer layer made of a polypropylene containing a styrene elastomer and the outermost layer made of polypropylene on an outer side of the outer layer of Takahashi, as Takahashi indicates these outer layers are shown to be useful for medical packaging with improved properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the outer layers of Takahashi in place of the outer layer of Nakamura to further improve the properties of the packaging device.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakamura further discloses the cyclic polyolefin is a hydrogenated product of a ring-opened polymer of a cyclic olefin monomer (¶ [0022, 0049]).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Nakamura further discloses a drug-containing medical container (40, Fig. 5; ¶ [0085, 0093]) comprising an accommodation portion (41, Fig. 5) that accommodates contents/a liquid medicine/a drug (¶ [0085, 0093]), wherein at least the accommodation portion (41, Fig. 5) is made of the container multilayered body (10, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781