DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on October 14, 2025, the objections to the claims, drawings, specification and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 06/12/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 14-25 have been amended,
Claims 1-13 were and still are cancelled.
Therefore, claims 14-25 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 14, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, ln. 2, the phrase, “…in the rage…” should read “…in the range…” to correct the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson (US 20070224379 A1; hereinafter Stevenson) in view of Rivett et al. (US 5755081 A; hereinafter Rivett).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 24, Stevenson teaches a laminated lidding foil (10; on a blister container or pack for pharmaceutical packaging; as shown in Figs. 2 and 5) comprising:
an aluminum foil layer (40),
an adhesive layer (30),
a polymer film layer (50),
further comprising a primer coating (i.e. in the form of a white polyester layer (20)) applied on one side of the aluminum foil layer, the primer coating providing a printing surface (see Stevenson [0032] and Fig. 1); and
the polymer film layer is melted and heat sealed on to a polymer base of the blister container to provide easy push through (Stevenson [0012,0029-0030,0037-0043] and Figs. 1-5).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…applied on one or both sides of the aluminum foil layer…” and “…is melted and heat sealed on to a polymer base…” are directed to product-by-process limitation(s) to which not patentable weight has been given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” See MPEP §2113
Thus, Stevenson fails to teach wherein the polymer film layer is thin and has a thickness range of 3 to 13 microns, and wherein the polymer film layer is selected from poly vinyl chloride (PVC), polyamides, polyolefins, polyesters and laminates comprising at least one these materials.
Rivett is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Stevenson, which is a container or pack having a laminated lidding seal. Rivett teaches a laminated lidding seal (10) comprising: multiple layers (first layer (12), second layer (14), third layer (16)), and a layer of tie or adhesive disposed between the multiple layers; and a thin polymer film layer (i.e. fourth layer (18)) provided below the third layer, and wherein the thin polymer film layer is selected from ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer, ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer and mixtures of the foregoing materials, and the [thin] polymer film layer having a thickness from 0.15 mil to 3 mils (3.81 – 76.2 microns), more preferably from 0.2 mil to 1.5 mils (5.08 to 38 microns) and most preferably, from about 0.25 mil to about 0.6 mil (6.35 to about 15.24 microns; Rivett Col. 5 ln. 13 – Col. 12 ln. 33 and Fig. 1).
Examiner’s note: the disclosed material of Rivett reads on “laminates or materials containing at least one of these (specifically alpha-olefin which is a form of polyolefin); emphasis added.
Furthermore, Rivett disclosed thickness range(s) for thin polymer film layer encompasses the claimed range of 3 to 13 microns, specifically from 0.15 mil to 0.6 mil (i.e. 3.81 to 15.24 microns); emphasis added. Therefore, Rivett discloses or teaches the claimed thickness range of 3 to 13 microns; emphasis added. See MPEP §2131.03(I)
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polymer film layer (of Stevenson) out of the same materials and thickness (as taught by Rivett) to enhance the sealing properties of the overall laminated lidding foil with respect to the blister container or pack.
Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 16, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the polymer film layer has a thickness in the range of 5 to 10 microns (Rivett Col. 7 ln. 27-30).
Regarding claim 17, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the polymer film layer and the polymer base of the blister container are made formed from polymers having compatible melting characteristics to permit heat sealing (Rivett Col. 1 ln. 27-32).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…are made formed from polymers having compatible melting characteristics to permit heat sealing…” are directed to product-by-process limitation(s) to which not patentable weight has been given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” See MPEP §2113
Regarding claim 18, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the adhesive layer is a solvent free adhesive (Stevenson [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the adhesive layer comprises a polymer selected from vinyl polymers, acrylic polymers (Stevenson [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the adhesive layer is positioned between the aluminum foil layer and the polymer film layer (Stevenson [0030, 0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein printing is applied on the aluminum foil layer using printing ink (Stevenson [0012, 0032]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation(s), “…is applied on the aluminum foil layer or on an interior side of the aluminum foil layer using printing ink or anti-counterfeit security inks…” are directed to product-by-process limitation(s) to which not patentable weight has been given by the examiner for the following reason(s): Applicant is reminded of the following regarding product-by-process limitation: Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” See MPEP §2113
Further, It has been held that mere indicia or printed matter does not distinguish over the prior art. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See MPEP §2112.01(III)
Regarding claim 25, modified Stevenson as above further teaches wherein the aluminum foil layer has a thickness in the range of 18 microns to 40 microns (Stevenson [0035]).
Examiner’s note: Stevenson discloses or teaches the following, the aluminum foil layer (40) having a thickness of about 0.0008 to about 0.001 inches (i.e. 20.32 to 25.4 microns). Since, Stevenson disclosed thickness range(s) for the aluminum foil layer overlaps with the claimed range of 18 to 40 microns, specifically from 20.32 to 25.4 microns; emphasis added. Therefore, Stevenson discloses or teaches the claimed thickness range of 18 to 40 microns; emphasis added. See MPEP §2131.03(I)
Claims 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied claims 14 and 21 above) and further in view of Banerjee (US 20180079124 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Banerjee).
Regarding claim 22, Stevenson as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 14, except for an additional layer of PET or another plastic film having a thickness in the range of 10 to 25 microns, disposed above the aluminum foil layer.
Banerjee is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Stevenson and Rivett, which is a laminated foil. Banerjee teaches a laminated foil (100; as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: an aluminum foil layer (302), an adhesive layer (i.e. first bond layer (402)), a layer of polymer film (i.e. surface film (200) which has three layers (202, 204 and 206)), and wherein the lower most layer (206) of the polymer or plastic film (200) is disposed 25 microns (i.e. the thickness of the first bond layer) above the aluminum foil layer (specifically the first aluminum layer; Banerjee [0097] and Fig. 1).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of an additional plastic film layer spaced from the aluminum foil layer (as taught by Banerjee) onto the overall laminated lidding foil (of Stevenson) to improve or enhance the overall sealing capabilities of the overall laminated lidding foil (of Stevenson).
Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 23, Stevenson as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 14 and 21 (respectively), except for wherein the aluminum foil layer is soft aluminum foil having a thickness in the range of 7 to 15 micron.
Banerjee is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Stevenson and Rivett, which is a laminated foil. Banerjee teaches a laminated foil (100; as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a soft annealed aluminum foil layer (302), an adhesive layer (i.e. first bond layer (402)), a layer of polymer film (i.e. surface film (200) which has three layers (202, 204 and 206)), and wherein the soft annealed aluminum foil layer having a thickness of 7 to 15 micron; Banerjee [0097] and Fig. 1).
Examiner’s note: Banerjee discloses or teaches the following, the soft annealed aluminum foil layer (302) having a thickness of 6 to 30 microns. Since, Banerjee’s disclosed thickness range(s) for the soft annealed aluminum foil layer encompasses the claimed range of 7 to 15 microns, specifically from 7 to 15 micron; emphasis added. Therefore, Banerjee discloses or teaches the claimed thickness range of 7 to 15 microns; emphasis added. See MPEP §2131.03(I)
With this in mind, 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 aluminum foil layer (of Stevenson) with a similar soft aluminum foil layer (as taught by Banerjee) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well. An express suggestion to substitute on equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(I)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant’s argues that the 103 rejection(s) as suggest by the examiner are improper because the applied prior art are addressing or resolving different problems (i.e. not the same problem as the claimed invention) and therefore, CANNOT be combinable with each other. Even assuming arguendo, the applied prior art(s) are combinable with each other, examiner relies on impermissible hindsight construction (see Remarks pg. 10-12).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s).
First and foremost, applicant argues against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP §2145(III) and §2145(IV)
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
With this in mind, as noted in the art rejection above (and the previous office action), the applied art(s) are all in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is directed to a sealing film laminate applied to a blister or container pack (much like the claimed invention); emphasis added.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP §2145(II)
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP §2145(X)(A)
Lastly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736