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.
Claims 1-4,6-27 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a lens support coupled to the lever and configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in a position on the lens support capable of single-touch transfer by a user”; said limitation is not understood by the Examiner. Clarification of said claim is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation of claim 3 “a pivot line is defined by at least one void in the base”; “claim 4 limitation “wherein a pivot line is imparted into the base by one or more of: a crease, a cut, a thinned line, and an etch“ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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.
Claims 1-3,6-8,10,12-20,22-24,28-34,38-45,47-50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 2014/0027465) in view of Almond et al. (US 2020/0229560).
Claim 1, Howell discloses a contact lens package comprising: a lid (120); a base (110) composed of a relatively rigid material comprising: a cavity (fig.1a; interior of 100) that houses a contact lens; and a lever (142,144); and a lens support (130) coupled to the lever (142,144) and configured to lift the contact lens out in a position on the lens support (130) capable of single-touch transfer by a user.
Howell does not disclose a cavity that houses packaging solution; and a lens support configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution; and a lens support configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in order to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 2, Howell discloses wherein at least one of the lever (142,144) and the lens support (130) is a discrete component that is coupled to the base (110) by an attachment means (142,144 coupled to the base via an attachment means).
Claim 3, Howell discloses wherein a pivot line is defined by at least one void in the base (110; do note the applicant has not illustrated or depicted in the drawings what the void is; moreover, the disclosure only mentioned the voids once and doesn’t reference any element in the drawings).
Claim 6, Howell discloses wherein the lid (120) comprises a film (para.0008) and the base (110) comprises a plastic material (110 is made of sheet of plastic material; para.0008).
Claim 7, although Howell does not disclose wherein the base (110) and the lens support (130) are a single unitary component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement any arbitrary component configuration including a single unitary component since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 8, Howell discloses wherein the lever (142,144) and the lens support (130) are a single unitary component.
Claim 12, Howell discloses a locking mechanism (140 lifting mechanism acts as the locking mechanism by preventing 130 from further lifting the contact lens beyond the dispensing position) configured to lock the lever (142,144) in place when the lens support (130) is lifted to a predetermined lift angle.
Claim 13, Howell discloses wherein the locking mechanism (140 lifting mechanism acts as the locking mechanism by preventing 130 from further lifting the contact lens beyond the dispensing position) comprises at least one of a latch, ratchet, peg (fig.1b; 142 element directly beneath 130b; note the plurality of 142 act as a lever), and an adhesive.
Claim 14, Howell discloses wherein the predetermined lift angle is at least about 45 degrees (see figs.1a-1b).
Claim 15, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) is configured such that the contact lens's (150) lower side emerges before the contact lens's upper side when lifted (fig.1b).
Although Howell does not disclose such that the contact lens's (150) upper side emerges before the contact lens's lower side when lifted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the contact lens upper side to emerge before the lower side when lifted because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 16, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle of at least zero degrees or at least 5 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support emergence angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 17, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has a primary lens angle and a lever (142,144) length.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support has a primary lens angle of between -4 degrees and 20 degrees and a lever length between about 11mm and 16mm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support primary lens angle and lever length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 18, Howell discloses wherein the lid (20) comprises at least one lens facing surface (fig.1a) that extends downward (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) into the cavity above the contact lens when the package is in an unopened state.
Claim 19, Howell discloses wherein the at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) and lens support (130) are configured within the cavity such that the optical zone of the contact lens (150) resides between the lens facing surface and lens support (130) when the package is in an unopened state (fig.1b).
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 20, Howell discloses a secondary support (fig.1a; 142 is also a secondary support and partially supports 150a) configured to support to the lens only when the package is unopened.
Claim 22, Howell discloses wherein the cavity houses the contact lens (150) in a concave position when the package is in an unopened or opened state.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 23, Howell discloses wherein when the package is an opened state the contact area between the lens support (130) and the contact lens (150).
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein when the package is an opened state the wetted contact area between the lens support and the contact lens is less than about 30mm2, less than about 25mm2, or less than about 20mm2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wetted contact area limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 24, Howell discloses at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) in the cavity above a side of the contact lens, wherein when the package is in an unopened state the at least one lens facing surface is configured to align the contact lens over the lens support; or protect the contact lens against significant optical damage due to gravitational, mechanical, or air-induced forces (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward can protect the contact lens against such forces).
Although Howell does not disclose at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) in the cavity above a convex side of the contact lens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 28, Howell discloses a contact lens package comprising a contact lens, a lens support (130), and a locking mechanism (140; lifting mechanism acts as the locking mechanism by preventing 130 from further lifting the contact lens beyond the dispensing position) wherein the lens support (130) is configured to lift the contact lens out and the locking mechanism (140) is configured to lock at a predetermined lift angle the lens support (130) having the contact lens (150b) thereupon.
Howell does not disclose a contact lens package comprising a contact lens in packaging solution; wherein the lens support is configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a contact lens package comprising a contact lens in packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a contact lens package comprising a contact lens in packaging solution; wherein the lens support is configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in order to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 29, Howell discloses wherein the package comprises a lever (142,144) configured to cause the lens support (130) to lift the contact lens out when a user applies force to the lever (142,144).
Howell does not disclose a lever (142,144) configured to cause the lens support (130) to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a contact lens package comprising a contact lens in packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a lever configured to cause the lens support to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in order to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 30, Howell discloses wherein the package is configured such that the force being applied to the lever (42,44) causes the lens support (130) to lift the contact lens out in a position on the lens support (130) capable of single-touch transfer by the user.
Howell does not disclose a lever (42,44) configured to cause the lens support (130) to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a contact lens package comprising a contact lens in packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a lever configured to cause the lens support to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in order to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 31, Howell discloses wherein at least one of the lever (142,144) and the lens support (130) is a discrete component that is coupled to the base (110) by an attachment means (142,144 are coupled to the base via an attachment means).
Claim 32, Howell discloses wherein the base (110) is composed of a relatively rigid material.
Claim 33, although Howell does not disclose wherein the base (110) and at least one of the lever (142,144) and lens support (130) are a single unitary component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement any arbitrary component configuration including a single unitary component since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 34, Howell discloses wherein the lever (142,144) and the lens support (130) are a single unitary component.
Claim 38, Howell discloses wherein the locking mechanism (140 lifting mechanism acts as the locking mechanism by preventing 130 from further lifting the contact lens beyond the dispensing position) comprises at least one of a latch, ratchet, peg (fig.1b; 142 element directly beneath 130b; note the plurality of 142 act as a lever), and an adhesive.
Claim 39, Howell discloses wherein the predetermined lift angle is at least about 45 degrees (see figs.1a-1b).
Claim 40, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) is configured such that the contact lens's (150) lower side emerges before the contact lens's upper side when lifted (fig.1b).
Although Howell does not disclose such that the contact lens's (150) upper side emerges before the contact lens's lower side when lifted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the contact lens upper side to emerge before the lower side when lifted because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 41, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle of at least zero degrees or at least 5 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support emergence angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 42, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has a primary lens angle and a lever (142,144) length.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support has a primary lens angle of between -4 degrees and 20 degrees and a lever length between about 11mm and 16mm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support primary lens angle and lever length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 43, Howell discloses wherein the lid (20) comprises at least one lens facing surface (fig.1a) that extends downward (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) into the cavity above the contact lens when the package is in an unopened state.
Claim 44, Howell discloses wherein the at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) and lens support (130) are configured such that the optical zone of the contact lens (150) resides within the cavity between the lens facing surface and lens support (130) when the package is in an unopened state (fig.1b).
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Claim 45, Howell discloses a secondary support (fig.1a; 142 is also a secondary support and partially supports 150a) configured to support to the lens only when the package is unopened.
Claim 47, Howell discloses wherein the cavity houses the contact lens (150) in a concave position when the package is in an unopened or opened state.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 48, Howell discloses wherein when the package is an opened state the contact area between the lens support (130) and the contact lens (150).
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein when the package is an opened state the wetted contact area between the lens support and the contact lens is less than about 30mm2, less than about 25mm2, or less than about 20mm2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wetted contact area limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 49, Howell discloses at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) in the cavity above a side of the contact lens, wherein when the package is in an unopened state the at least one lens facing surface is configured to align the contact lens over the lens support; or protect the contact lens against significant optical damage due to gravitational, mechanical, or air-induced forces (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward can protect the contact lens against such forces).
Although Howell does not disclose at least one lens facing surface (lid portion of 20 that face the contact lens does extend downward since it does have thickness; figs.1a-1b) in the cavity above a convex side of the contact lens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 50, Howell discloses a lid insert (22).
Claim 53, Howell discloses a lens support (130) for lifting a contact lens (150) contained in a cavity in a contact lens package base, wherein the lens support (130) holds the lens in a concave position and the lens support (130) is configured such that the contact lens's lower side emerges before the contact lens's upper side when lifted (see figures).
Howell does not disclose a cavity that houses packaging solution; and a lens support configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution; and a lens support configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in order to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein the lens support holds the lens in a convex position and the lens support is configured such that the contact lens's upper side emerges from the packaging solution before the contact lens's lower side when lifted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement wherein the cavity houses the contact lens in a convex position when the package is in an unopened or opened state because it merely depends on the manner in which the contact lens is stored within the blister packaging and this configuration does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 54, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support (130) has an emergence angle of at least zero degrees or at least 5 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support emergence angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 55, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) has a primary lens angle and a lever (142,144) length.
Although Howell does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens support has a primary lens angle of between -4 degrees and 20 degrees and a lever length between about 11mm and 16mm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the lens support primary lens angle and lever length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claim 56, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) is configured to produce a contact area between the lens support (130) and the contact lens (150).
Howell does not disclose the packaging solution.
Almond discloses a cavity that houses packaging solution (para.0004; fiugs.1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell with a cavity that houses packaging solution to keep the contact lens moist, clean, and flexible; thus, preventing the delicate contact lens from drying out and/or cracking.
Although Howell does not disclose wherein when the package is an opened state the wetted contact area between the lens support and the contact lens is less than about 30mm2, less than about 25mm2, or less than about 20mm2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wetted contact area limitation disclosed by Applicant, since 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.
Claims 9,35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 2014/0027465) in view of Almond et al. (US 2020/0229560) in view of Coon (US 2010/0200437).
Claim 9, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) is coupled to the base (110).
Howell in view of Almond do not disclose wherein the lens support is coupled to the base by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; and iv) an adhesive.
Coon discloses wherein the lid is coupled to the housing by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; and iv) an adhesive (para.0185). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell in view of Almond with wherein the lens support is coupled to the base by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; and iv) an adhesive because such use is very well-known in the art for attaching or joining separate components of a dispenser and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 35, Howell discloses wherein the lens support (130) is coupled to the base (110).
Howell in view of Almond do not disclose wherein the lens support is coupled to the base by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; iv) mechanical clipping; and v) an adhesive.
Coon discloses wherein the lid is coupled to the housing by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; iv) mechanical clipping; and v) an adhesive (para.0185). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Howell in view of Almond with wherein the lens support is coupled to the base by at least one of: i) a laser weld; ii) heat; iii) an ultrasonic weld; iv) mechanical clipping; and v) an adhesive because such use is very well-known in the art for attaching or joining separate components of a dispenser and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11,21,25-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 36-37,46,51-52 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights