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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) and Species I
(Figs. 1-6) in a reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 9-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to
37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claims 5-8 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.
Regarding claims 5-8, claim 4 recites that the package separator is “of any preceding claim.” Thus, claim 4 may alternatively depend from claim 1, claim 2, or claim 3. Claims 5-8 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 4. As a result, it is unclear which limitations of claims 1-3 are required by claims 5-8. For example, claim 5 depends from claim 4, and claim 4 may depend from claim 1, claim 2, or claim 3. Consequently, claim 5 may alternatively include the limitations of claim 1 alone, the limitations of claims 1 and 2, or the limitations of claims 1-3. The same ambiguity is carried forward into claims 6-8, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 5. Accordingly, the scope of claims 5-8 cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty because the claims do not clearly identify which combination of limitations is required. The claims should be amended to provide a definite dependency relationship. For example, if claims 5-8 are intended to depend from the subject matter of claim 1 as further limited by claim 4, claim 4 should be amended to depend specifically from claim 1 rather than from “any preceding claim.”
Regarding claim 7, “a separation angle between the package in the package seat and an adjacent package is less than 1 degree” is unclear. The claim does not define with reasonable certainty what geometric features or reference points are used to determine the recited “separation angle.” In particular, it is unclear between which lines, surfaces, axes, or other geometric references the angle is measured. The recitation of an angle “between the package in the package seat and an adjacent package” does not identify the particular portions or geometric references of the respective packages that establish the angle. For example, it is unclear whether the claimed angle is measured between respective longitudinal axes of the packages, respective surfaces of the packages, a package axis and a reference axis of the package separator, or some other reference. Because different reference points or geometric features may produce different angular measurements, the limitation “less than 1 degree” does not provide a sufficiently definite boundary for the scope of the claim.
5. Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, “wherein when the arm pin slides along the pin slot, the package strip separates into a plurality of packages.” However, claim 1 claims a “package separator for separating a package strip” and does not positively recite the package strip as part of the claimed combination. The limitation of claim 2 therefore recites an event or result occurring to the package strip, rather than a further limitation of the claimed package separator. In particular, claim 2 does not require any additional structure or configuration of the package separator beyond that already recited in claim 1. The package separator of claim 1 remains the same regardless of whether a package strip actually separates into a plurality of packages when the arm pin slides along the pin slot. Accordingly, claim 2 does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in claim 1, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(d).
Regarding claim 3, the claim which depends from claim 3, recites, “wherein each of the plurality of packages comprises a contact lens.” The plurality of packages, however, results from the separation of the package strip recited in claim 2, and neither the package strip nor the plurality of packages is positively recited as part of the claimed package separator. The limitation that the packages comprise contact lenses therefore limits the packages, rather than the claimed package separator. The package separator claimed in claim 1 is not required to have any different structure or configuration based on whether the packages being separated contain contact lenses or another product.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossen (4,111,345). Regarding claim 1, Vossen teaches a package separator for separating (or capable of separating) a package strip (96; Fig. 10), comprising: a plurality of pin slots 117; and a plurality of arms 118, each comprising: an arm pin 116 configured to slide along a pin slot 117 of the plurality of pin slots, and a package seat 120 configured to accept a package of the package strip 96, wherein the package separator is configured to apply lateral tension across the package strip 96 in a direction orthogonal to a perforation line (defined by the line that includes fillets 98 connecting two adjacent useful lengths together; Fig. 10) of the package strip, wherein when the arm pin 116 slides along the pin slot 117, the package strip separates into a plurality of packages. See Figs. 1-10 in Vossen. More particularly, Vossen discloses pressure fingers 118 guided by pins 116 engaging elongate slots 117, wherein the pressure fingers 118 are moved apart and exert oppositely directed tangential forces on adjacent useful lengths 96 through contact surfaces 60, thereby causing separation of the adjacent useful lengths 96 connected by fillets 98, as shown in Figs. 5-7 and 10. It should be noted that the package strip has not been positively claimed. Vossen’s apparatus has to be merely capable of separating a package strip because the package strip is not part of the claimed package separator and is merely a workpiece.
Vossen does not explicitly teach that the pin slots are on the package separator body and the pins are on the arms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to switch the locations of the pin slots and the arm pins in a manner that the pin slots would be located on the package separator body and the pins would be located on the arms, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Vossen, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that when the arm pin slides along the pin slot 117, the package strip separators into a plurality of packages.
Regarding claim 4, Vossen, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that when the arm pin (which is on the arm, as modified above) slides along the pin slot 117, the arm 118 shifts towards a center longitudinal axis 114 (Fig. 8) of the package separator.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Vossen, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including when the pressure fingers 118 are moved by the interaction of the pins 116 and elongate slots 117, the portions of the pressure fingers 118 engaging the adjacent useful lengths 96 move laterally away from the central longitudinal axis 114, thereby forcing the adjacent useful lengths 96 away from one another and destroying the connecting fillets 98. See Fig. 7 and the corresponding description in Vossen. More particularly, Vossen teaches that the two pressure fingers 118 are arranged symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal axis 114 and that, upon actuation of the plunger 132 and toggle levers 130, the toggle levers 130 act in a cam-like manner on the pressure fingers 118 to produce the sought-for spreading of the pressure fingers 118, with the pressure fingers 118 thereby exerting oppositely directed forces on adjacent useful lengths 96. Thus, the portions of the arms 118 which engage and support the useful lengths 96 shift laterally away from the central longitudinal axis 114 during the separating operation.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Vossen, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that when the portions of the pressure fingers 18 shift laterally away from the longitudinal axis 14, the pressure fingers 18 swivel around pivot pins 16. See Figs. 1, 5, and 6 in Vossen. In particular, Vossen teaches a press body 12 having pins 16 extending between parallel side pieces, with pressure fingers 18 pivoted about the pins 16, and wherein, upon downward movement of the press 10 and engagement of the contact surfaces 20 with adjacent useful lengths 96, the pressure fingers 18 swivel about the pins 16 in opposite directions such that the engaging surfaces 20 move away from one another and exert oppositely directed tangential forces on the adjacent useful lengths 96, thereby producing the desired separation by destruction of the fillets 98. Vossen further teaches, in another embodiment, pressure fingers 58 pivoted about pins 56 and, in the separating operation, the pressure fingers 58 being swung outwardly about the pins 56 away from one another. See Figs. 3 and 5-6 in Vossen. Thus, Vossen teaches arms which, during lateral movement of their package-engaging portions away from the longitudinal axis, swivel about pivot pins.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossen in view of Edwards et al. (5,776,297), hereinafter Edwards. Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Vossen teaches the package separator of claim 2, including a package strip comprising a plurality of useful lengths 96 interconnected by fillets 98, pressure fingers 118 configured to engage adjacent useful lengths 96, and pins 116 engaging elongate slots 117 such that, upon movement of the pressure fingers 118, the adjacent useful lengths 96 are separated by destruction of the fillets 98. See Figs. 5-7 and the corresponding description in Vossen. Vossen, however, does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of packages comprises a contact lens. Edwards et al. teaches a plurality of interconnected blister packages 12, each comprising a base member containing a hydrophilic contact lens immersed in a sterile saline solution, with the blister packages being interconnected by a laminated flexible cover or sheet 14. Edwards et al. further teaches that the laminated foil strip 204 is perforated at perforation lines between adjacent blister packages to facilitate subsequent separation of a single blister package from the strip, and that the resulting cover strips are subsequently applied to rows of blister package bases containing contact lenses. See Figs. 1, 7-9, and 10-13 and the corresponding description in Edwards et al. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the package strip and contact-lens-containing blister packages of Edwards et al. with the separating apparatus of Vossen, since both references are directed to separating interconnected package or sheet lengths along weakened or perforated separation lines, and Edwards et al. expressly identifies contact-lens-containing blister packages as the packages to be separated.
9. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossen in view of Muylle (3,943,810). Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Vossen does not explicitly teach that the package seat is affixed to a package seat pin and that, when the package seat shifts laterally away from the central longitudinal axis, the package seat swivels around the package seat pin. However, Muylle teaches a mechanical arrangement in which a carrier arm is pivotally connected and moves about a pivot pin, and further teaches control arms connected to the carrier arms through pivotal connections, including a pin and bearing arrangement, such that the connected component is permitted to swivel about the associated pin during operation. See Muylle, Figs. 1-4 and the corresponding disclosure concerning punch carrier arms 16, pivot pins 17, control arms 22, and pivotal connections 21 and 23. Muylle further teaches that pivotal connections may be employed to provide controlled angular displacement of an arm and its associated working element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the contact surface/package seat arrangement of Vossen to be supported on a pivot pin so that the package seat could swivel relative to the arm during the lateral separating movement, as taught by the pivot-pin and pivotal-connection arrangements of Muylle, because such a modification would provide controlled angular movement of the package-contacting surface during the lateral separation operation and would accommodate relative movement between the package seat and the package strip while maintaining engagement with the package.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Vossen, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including a package separator for separating a package strip (96; Figs. 5-10), comprising: a plurality of pin slots (117); and a plurality of arms (118), each comprising: an arm pin (116) configured to slide along a pin slot (117) of the plurality of pin slots, and a package seat (contact surfaces 60) configured to accept a package of the package strip (96), wherein the package separator is configured to apply lateral tension across the package strip in a direction orthogonal to a perforation line (defined by the line including the fillets 98 connecting adjacent useful lengths; Fig. 10) of the package strip. See Figs. 1-10 in Vossen. Vossen further teaches that the pressure fingers 118 are displaced laterally away from the longitudinal axis 114 while the pins 116 move along the elongate slots 117, thereby producing a spreading movement of adjacent useful lengths and separating the useful lengths at the fillets 98. Vossen does not explicitly teach that, when the package seat swivels or otherwise moves laterally during separation, a separation angle between the package in the package seat and an adjacent package is less than 1 degree. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the lateral displacement and/or angular movement of the pressure fingers and the corresponding package-contacting surfaces so that the separation angle between adjacent packages is less than 1 degree, because the amount of angular displacement is a result-effective variable dependent upon the geometry and dimensions of the separator, the spacing between adjacent packages, and the amount of lateral displacement required to sever the connecting fillets. Selecting a relatively small separation angle, including an angle of less than 1 degree, would have been a matter of routine optimization of a known separation mechanism and would not have required a change in the principle of operation of Vossen.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Abrams et al. (5,697,495), Suuronen et al. (4,946,086), Kimura et al. (4,618,085), and Isii et al. (6,257,475 B1) teach a package separator.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
August 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights