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 .
Response to Amendment
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claim 1 has been amended,
Claims 2-8 were previously presented, and
Claims 9-20 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration
Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnack et al (2006/0186010) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557).
As to claim 1, Warnack discloses a medical device packaging assembly (Figure 12), comprising: an external package (package 22); a carrier tube (10) disposed within the external package (Figure 12), the carrier tube including one or more clips (122, 124, 126, etc) configured to hold the carrier tube in a predetermined configuration (coiled configuration, Figure 6); a medical device (128) disposed within the carrier tube; and a moisture or oxygen scavenging material added to the package ([0100] teaches the medical device place in a container 920 with an additional component, information pamphlet, and/or liquid scavengers…and the container can include only a single compartment to hold both the medical device and the liquid scavengers), the one of the one or more clips includes a clasp (Figure 3, [0050] teaches the holder can be configured as a pressure clip, friction clip, crocodile clip, or the like, which are well known in the art to hold planar substrates, clips are a form of a clasp).
However, Warnack does not specifically disclose that a moisture or oxygen scavenging material packet releasably coupled to one of the one or more clips that configured to releasably couple with the moisture or oxygen scavenger packet, the moisture or oxygen scavenging packet comprising: an outer barrier pouch; an inner container disposed within the outer barrier pouch; and a desiccant and/or an oxygen scavenging material disposed within the inner container.
Nevertheless Brooks discloses an article packaging assembly (Figure 1) comprises an article (13) position inside an outer package (11), a moisture or oxygen scavenging material packet (17a) place inside the outer package (Figure 1), the moisture or oxygen scavenging packet (17a) comprising: an outer barrier pouch (17a); an inner container (19) disposed within the outer barrier pouch (Figure 2); and a desiccant and/or an oxygen scavenging material(21) disposed within the inner container (19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid scavengers of Warnack with a desiccant packet with frangible inner container as taught by Brooks in order to absorb unwanted type of gas from within the enclosure for a selected period of time (column 5, lines 3-7). With regarding to the position of the packet, the pressure clip, friction clip 50 of Warnack as taught is configured to releasably coupled with the moisture or oxygen scavenging packet inside the outer package.
As to claims 2-4, Warnack as modified by Brooks further discloses the inner container (19) comprises a non-porous material (the ampoule is made of non-permeable glass, column 3, lines 46-51), the outer barrier pouch (17a) comprises a porous material (the pouch 17a is gas permeable (or otherwise permeable to the chemical that is absorbed by the getter), column 4, lines 7-9), the inner container is configured to rupture in response to an applied force (the ampoule made of glass breaks by external force applied to the ampoule, column 4, lines 33-35).
As to claim 6-7, Warnack as modified by Brooks further discloses the inner container comprises a crushable vial (ampoule), and the outer barrier pouch comprises a sealed header region (25 or 23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnack et al (2006/0186010) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557), further in view of Emori (5,458,244).
As to claim 5, Warnack as modified further discloses the inner container comprises a ampoule, but does not disclose the inner container comprises a sachet formed from a polymer film. Nevertheless, Emori discloses an outer bag(1), an inner bag (4) contains a substance, the inner bag can be rupture at the seal portion (5) by applying force to the outer bag (1, Figure 1) and the inner bag is formed from a polymer film ((thermoplastic resin film). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ampoule of Warnack as modified with a rupturable resin pouch as taught by Emori to reduce the shatter glass ampoule might create a sharp edge that penetrate the outer package to cause the leak of desiccant.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnack et al (2006/0186010) in view of Brooks et al (5,551,557), further in view of Dick et al (2011/0048976).
As to claim 8, Warnack as modified does not specifically disclose the desiccant package comprises an opening extending through a thickness of the sealed header region. Nevertheless, Dicks discloses a desiccant package (14) comprises a closed desiccant pouch (16) to form the strip (32) of interconnected pouches (16), the pouches having a sealed header region (34) and an opening (opening 36) extending through a thickness of the sealed header region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealed header of Warnack as modified with opening form at the header portion of the desiccant package as taught by Dick in order to hang the outer barrier pouch inside the outer package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Orlando E Aviles can be reached at (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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights