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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 03/25/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 10 and 15 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are pending and examined below.
Upon further examining and consideration, claim 9 was determined to be improperly indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the prior Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025. In view of the new grounds of rejection presented, this office action is made NON-FINAL.
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 1-9 and 11-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 line 10, the phrase “when a primary packaging shell is supported” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is a new or previously mentioned feature. When a new feature is introduced, the feature should be preceded by “a”. When a previous feature is being referred to, the feature should be preceded by "the" or "said". Prior to the quoted phrase, the shell support is disclosed as supporting a primary packaging shell. It is unclear if the primary packaging shell of the quoted phrase is the same or different from the primary packaging shell being supported by the shell support. For examining purposes, the phase is interpreted as “when the primary packaging shell is supported”.
Regarding claim 1 line 28, the phrase “and placing it on” also renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is referred to by the term “it”. Prior to the quoted phrase, claim 1 disclose several features. It is unclear which feature the term “it” is referring to. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “and placing the sealing foil on”.
Claims 2-8 and 11-13 are dependent of claim 1 and include all the same limitations.
Regarding claim 9 line 2, the phrase “in particular silicone” renders claim 9 vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, the phrase “further comprising a foil gripper” renders claim 5 to be of improper dependent form because claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter. Claim 5 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 discloses a foil gripper.
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
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 1-2, 6-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Ueda et al. (5,371,996) in view of reference Erhardt (3,908,340).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda et al. disclose a sealing device for sealing a sealing foil (L) onto a top surface (F) of a primary packaging shell (C), wherein the sealing device comprises:
a shell support (46) for supporting the primary packaging shell (C);
a heatable sealing head (49) arranged above the shell support (46),
wherein the sealing head (49) comprises a contact surface (101) facing downwardly toward the shell support (46); and
at least one linear actuator (48, 55) for performing a vertical relative movement of the shell support (46) and the sealing head (49) towards and away from each other between:
an open position, in which the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49) is arranged spaced above the shell support (46) by a predetermined distance,
wherein the predetermined distance forms, when the primary packaging shell (C) is supported by the shell support (46), a vertical gap between the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49) and the top surface (F) of the primary packing shell (C) arranged on the shell support (46); and
a closed position, in which the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49) is arranged to press the sealing foil (L) against a sealing portion of the top surface (F) of the primary packaging shell (C),
wherein the sealing portion is defined by the portion of the top surface (F) contacted by the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49),
wherein the sealing device further comprises a foil holder (12) for holding the sealing foil (L),
wherein the foil holder (12) is arranged to hold the sealing foil (L) at a foil provision position (Figure 10) which is spaced by a first predetermined distance from the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49) and by a second predetermined distance from the top surface (F) of the primary packaging shell (C),
wherein foil provision position (Figure 10) is in the vertical gap between the contact surface (101) of the sealing head (49) and the top surface (F) of the primary packaging shell (C) when the primary packaging shell (C) is supported by the shell support (46),
wherein, upon relative movement of the shell support (46) and the sealing head (49) towards each other, the sealing foil (L) is sealed to the top surface (F) of the primary packaging shell (C) along the sealing portion.
(Figures 6, 10 and Column 2 lines 35-40, 45-54, Column 3 lines 43-53, Column 4 lines 24-38, Column 5 lines 62-68)
However, Ueda et al. do not disclose a foil gripper and a foil magazine.
Erhardt disclose sealing device (14) comprising: a foil gripper (56) for gripping a sealing foil (L) from a magazine (41). (Figures 3-4 and Column 3 lines 54-63, Column 4 lines 3-8, 54-58)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ueda et al. by incorporating the foil gripper and magazine at taught by Erhardt, since column 1 lines 11-16 of Erhardt states such a modification would help reduce waste.
[AltContent: textbox (Hollow Cylinder)][AltContent: textbox (Cylinder Wall)][AltContent: textbox (Support Top Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Ueda et al.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
106
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
106
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46) comprises a support top surface (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) for supporting the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – C), wherein the sealing head comprises a sealing rim (Ueda et al. – 101) protruding downwardly and having the contact surface, and wherein the contact surface faces the support top surface (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) of the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46). (Ueda et al. – Figure 6, 11)
Regarding claim 6, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the at least one linear actuator (Ueda et al. – 48, 55) comprise:
a first linear actuator (Ueda et al. – 55) operatively coupled to the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46),
wherein the first linear actuator (Ueda et al. – 55) is configured to perform a vertical movement of the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46) towards and away from the sealing head (Ueda et al. – 49); and
a second linear actuator (Ueda et al. – 48) operatively couple to the sealing head (Ueda et al. – 49),
wherein the second linear actuator (Ueda et al. – 48) is configured to perform a vertical movement of the sealing head (Ueda et al. – 49) toward and away from the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46).
(Ueda et al. – Figure 6 and Column 5 lines 29-33, 53-54)
Regarding claim 7, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46) comprises: a hollow cylinder (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) having a circumferentially running cylinder wall (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above), wherein the top surface of the circumferentially running cylinder wall (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) forms the support top surface (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) for supporting the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – C). (Ueda et al. – Figure 6)
Regarding claim 8, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the hollow cylinder (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) comprises a vacuum supply port (Ueda et al. – 56) for supply a vacuum through an interior space of the hollow cylinder (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) to suck the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – 46) against the top surface (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above) of the circumferentially running cylinder wall (Ueda et al. – see figure 6 above). (Ueda et al. – Figure 6 and Column 4 lines 43-53)
Regarding claim 12, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose at least one movable carrier (Ueda et al. – 24) for transporting the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – 46) and arranging the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – 46) underneath the sealing head (Ueda et al. – 49). (Ueda et al. – Figure 2 and Column 2 lines 60-66)
Regarding claim 13, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the at least one movable carrier (Ueda et al. – 24) comprises: a carrier body for carrying the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – C); and an opening (Ueda et al. – 26) extending vertically through the carrier body, wherein the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46) is vertically movable upwards through the opening (Ueda et al. – 26) extending through the carrier body to lift the primary packaging shell (Ueda et al. – C) from the movable carrier so as to be supported by the shell support (Ueda et al. – 46). (Ueda et al. – Figure 2, 6 and Column 2 lines 60-66)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Ueda et al. (5,371,996) in view of reference Erhardt (3,908,340) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of reference Matsumoto et al. (5,597,428).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda et al. modified by Erhardt disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a ring arranged to form the top of the surface of the running cylinder wall.
Matsumoto et al. disclose a shell support (12) comprising a hollow cylinder having a circumferentially running cylinder wall, wherein the circumferentially running cylinder wall has a top surface (12a) for supporting a shell (16), wherein a ring (46) made of elastic material, and wherein the ring (46) is arranged to form the top surface. (Figures 7-8 and Column 4 lines 10-18)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the shell support of Ueda et al. by incorporating the ring as taught by Matsumoto et al., since column 4 lines 18-21 of Matsumoto et al. states such a modification would provide anti-slip means between the shell and the shell support.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Voss et al. (7,213,382) in view of reference Hargreaves (11,691,772).
Regarding claim 14, Voss et al. disclose method for sealing a sealing foil (26) onto a top surface (39) of a primary packaging shell (24) for an ophthalmic article, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
providing the primary packaging shell (24) on a shell support (14);
arranging the shell support (14) with the primary packaging shell (24) at a position vertically spaced from a heatable sealing head (32);
wherein the shell support (14) is arranged underneath the sealing head (32),
wherein the sealing head (32) comprises a contact surface (see figure 1 below) protruding downwardly from the sealing head (32) towards a top surface (39) the primary packaging shell (24), and
wherein the sealing head (32) is positioned such that there is a vertical gap between the contact surface (see figure 1 below) of the sealing head (32) and the top surface (39) of the primary packing shell (24);
providing a sealing foil (26) at a foil provision position (Figure 1) vertically spaced from the contact surface (see figure 1 below) of the sealing head (32) by a first predetermined distance;
heating the sealing head to a predetermined sealing temperature; and
vertically moving the sealing head (32) towards the shell support (14) until the contact surface (see figure 1 below) of the sealing head (32) presses the sealing foil (26) against the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24),
wherein the sealing foil (26) is sealed to the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24) along a sealing portion,
wherein the sealing portion is defined by the portion of the top surface (39) contacted by the contact surface (see figure 1 below) of the sealing head (32), and
wherein the foil provision position (Figure 1) is vertically spaced from the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24) by a second predetermined distance.
(Figures 1, 4 and Column 4 lines 48-50, 60-62, Column 5 lines 2-6, 11-13, 21-29)
[AltContent: textbox (Sealing Rim / Contact Surface)][AltContent: textbox (Voss et al.)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
557
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Voss et al. do not disclose a vertical relative movement of the shell support and the sealing head.
Hargreaves discloses a sealing device (28) comprising:
a shell support (32) for supporting a primary packaging shell (36);
a heatable sealing head (30) arranged above the shell support (32); and
at least one linear actuator (col 7 ln 56) for performing a vertical relative movement of the shell support (32) and the sealing head (30) towards and away from each other between an open position and a closed position.
(Column 4 lines 56-60, Column 7 lines 54-67 through Column 8 lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted sealing head only movement with the sealing head and shell support movement as taught by Hargreaves, since column 7 lines 60-67 through column 8 lines 1-2 of Hargreaves states moving both the sealing head and shell support would work equally well at bring the sealing head and shell support together, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Voss et al. (7,213,382) in view of references Hargreaves (11,691,772) and Erhardt (3,908,340).
Regarding claim 1, Voss et al. disclose a sealing device (10) for sealing a sealing foil (26) onto a top surface (39) of a primary packaging shell (24) for an ophthalmic article, wherein the sealing device comprises:
a shell support (14) for supporting the primary packaging shell (24);
a heatable sealing head (32) arranged above the shell support (14),
wherein the sealing head (32) comprises a contact surface (see figure 1 above) facing downwardly toward the shell support (14); and
wherein the sealing head (32) is configured to perform a vertical relative movement towards and away from the shell support (14) between:
an open position, in which the contact surface (see figure 1 above) of the sealing head (32) is arranged spaced above the shell support (14) by a predetermined distance,
wherein the predetermined distance forms, when the primary packaging shell (24) is supported by the shell support (14), a vertical gap between the contact surface (see figure 1 below) of the sealing head (32) and the top surface (39) of the primary packing shell (24) arranged on the shell support (14); and
a closed position, in which the contact surface (see figure 1 above) of the sealing head (32) is arranged to press the sealing foil (26) against a sealing portion of the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24),
wherein the sealing portion is defined by the portion of the top surface (39) contacted by the contact surface (see figure 1 above) of the sealing head (32),
wherein the sealing device further comprises a foil holder (28, 30) for holding the sealing foil (26),
wherein the foil holder (28, 30) is arranged to hold the sealing foil (26) at a foil provision position (Figure 1) which is spaced by a first predetermined distance from the contact surface (see figure 1 above) of the sealing head (32) and by a second predetermined distance from the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24),
wherein foil provision position (Figure 1) is in the vertical gap between the contact surface (see figure 1 above) of the sealing head (32) and the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24) when the primary packaging shell (24) is supported by the shell support (14),
wherein, upon movement of the sealing head (32) towards the shell support (14), the sealing foil (26) is sealed to the top surface (39) of the primary packaging shell (24) along the sealing portion.
(Figures 1, 4 and Column 4 lines 48-50, 60-62, Column 5 lines 2-6, 11-13, 21-29)
However, Voss et al. do not disclose at least one linear actuator configured to perform a vertical relative movement of the shell support and the sealing head, and do not disclose a foil gripper and a foil magazine.
Hargreaves discloses a sealing device (28) comprising:
a shell support (32) for supporting a primary packaging shell (36);
a heatable sealing head (30) arranged above the shell support (32); and
at least one linear actuator (col 7 ln 56) for performing a vertical relative movement of the shell support (32) and the sealing head (30) towards and away from each other between an open position and a closed position.
(Column 4 lines 56-60, Column 7 lines 54-67 through Column 8 lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted sealing head only moving system with the sealing head and shell support moving system as taught by Hargreaves, since column 7 lines 60-67 through column 8 lines 1-2 of Hargreaves states moving both the sealing head and shell support would work equally well at bring the sealing head and shell support together, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Erhardt disclose sealing device (14) comprising: a foil gripper (56) for gripping a sealing foil (L) from a magazine (41). (Figures 3-4 and Column 3 lines 54-63, Column 4 lines 3-8, 54-58)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Voss et al. by incorporating the foil gripper and magazine at taught by Erhardt, since column 1 lines 11-16 of Erhardt states such a modification would help reduce waste.
Regarding claim 2, Voss et al. modified by Hargreaves and Erhardt disclose the shell support (Voss et al. – 14) comprises a support top surface (Voss et al. – see figure 4 below) for supporting the primary packaging shell (Voss et al. – 24), wherein the sealing head (Voss et al. – 32) comprises a sealing rim (Voss et al. – see figure 1 above) protruding downwardly and having the contact surface, wherein the contact surface faces the support top surface (Voss et al. – see figure 4 below) of the shell support (14). (Voss et al. – Figures 1, 4 and Column 5 lines 21-27)
[AltContent: textbox (Support Top Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Voss et al.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
168
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Voss et al. modified by Hargreaves and Erhardt disclose a force sensor (Voss et al. – 36) coupled to the shell support (Voss et al. – 14) for measuring a sealing force exerted by the sealing head (Voss et al. – 32) onto the shell support (Voss et al. – 14). (Voss et al. – Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 39-42)
Regarding claim 4, Voss et al. modified by Hargreaves and Erhardt disclose the foil holder (Voss et al. – 28, 30) is movable horizontally between a foil delivery position (Voss et al. – col 5 ln 14-15), in which the sealing foil (Voss et al. – 26) is held at the foil provision position (Voss et al. – Figure 1), and a foil receiving position (Voss et al. – col 5 ln 14) for placing the sealing foil (Voss et al. – 26) on the foil holder (Voss et al. – 28, 30), the foil receiving position (Voss et al. – col 5 ln 14) is horizontally displaced relative to the foil delivery position (Voss et al. – col 5 ln 14-15). (Voss et al. – Figure 1, 2 and Column 5 lines 13-15)
Regarding claim 11, Voss et al. modified by Hargreaves and Erhardt disclose a plurality of said force sensors (Voss et al. – 36) corresponding toe the plurality of said shell supports (Voss et al. – 14), wherein each force sensor (Voss et al. – 36) of the plurality of force sensor (Voss et al. – 36) is coupled to a respective one shell support (Voss et al. – 14) of the plurality of shell supports (Voss et al. – 14), and wherein each force sensor (Voss et al. – 36) of the plurality of force sensor (Voss et al. – 36) is configured to measure the individual sealing force exerted by the respective sealing head (Voss et al. – 32) of the plurality of sealing heads (Voss et al. – 32). (Voss et al. –Column 3 lines 10-14, Column 5 lines 39-42)
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on 03/25/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 10 and 15 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are pending in the application.
Upon further examining and consideration, claim 9 was determined to be improperly indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the prior Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025. In view of the new grounds of rejection presented, this office action is made NON-FINAL.
In response to the arguments of the objections towards the drawings, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Uedo et al. (5,371,996), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Voss et al. (7,213,382) modified by references Hargreaves (11,691,772) and Erhardt (3,908,340), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The claim 5 is nonobvious by reference Voss et al. (7,213,382) in view of references Hargreaves (11,691,772).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Voss et al. (7,213,382) modified by reference Hargreaves (11,691,772) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of reference Erhardt (3,908,340).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 June 10, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights