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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(u) because view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. MPEP 608.02 V.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the form and legal phraseology of “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 6029808) further in view of Chien (US 20190177063).
Claim 1: Peck discloses a blister pack 10 (contact lens package) comprising: a base 11 (accommodation element) which has at least one recess 13 (cup) for accommodation of a contact lens fluid and a contact lens; and a cover 12 (cover film) which is connected to the base 11 (accommodation element) in order to close the at least one recess 13 (cup) (see fig. 1).
Peck does not disclose wherein the accommodation element has, at least in a region of the at least one cup, a coating containing silicon oxide or aluminium oxide.
Chien teaches an anti-contamination contact lens package 100 including a substrate 10 having an inner surface 101 with a receiving groove 11 for receiving contact lenses and a photocatalyst film layer 20 of silicon dioxide (coating containing silicon oxide) formed on at least the inner surface 101 (see P. 0015, 0024 and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the blister pack 10 (contact lens package) to have a photocatalyst film layer 20 of silicon dioxide (coating containing silicon oxide) formed on at least the at least one recess 13 (cup), as taught by Chien, in order to give the blister pack 10 (contact lens package) anti-contamination properties as the photocatalyst material will convert light energy into chemical energy thereby causing the decomposition of organisms (such as bacteria) when irradiated.
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the base 11 (accommodation element) has, in the region of the at least one recess 13 (cup), a wall thickness of less than 0.55 mm which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.05 mm and 0.6 mm (see C. 2 L. 52-54).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed range.
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the photocatalyst film layer 20 (coating) has a layer thickness which is between 0.003 micrometers to 86 micrometers which the claimed range of 10 nm and 250 nm lies within (see P. 0019).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed range.
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the photocatalyst film layer 20 (coating) has a layer thickness which is between 0.003 micrometers to 86 micrometers which the claimed range of 20 nm and 80 nm lies within (see P. 0019).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 6029808) and Chien (US 20190177063) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wills (US 20190015561).
Claim 3: En arguendo, if applicant disagrees that the disclosure of 0.003 micrometers to 86 micrometers obviates the claimed range, Wills teaches a blister pack having a barrier coating 288 of SiOx with a thickness in the range of at least 10 nm and at most 300 nm which contains the claimed range of between 10 nm and 250 nm (see P. 0091 and 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the thickness of the photocatalyst film layer 20 (coating) be in the range of at least 10 nm and at most 300 nm, as taught by Wills in order to reduce the ingress of atmospheric gas and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 4: En arguendo, if applicant disagrees that the disclosure of 0.003 micrometers to 86 micrometers obviates the claimed range, Wills teaches a blister pack having a barrier coating 288 of SiOx with a thickness of at least 20nm and at most 80 nm (between 20 nm and 80 nm) (see P. 0091 and 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the thickness of the photocatalyst film layer 20 (coating) be between 20 nm and 80 nm, as taught by Wills in order to reduce the ingress of atmospheric gas and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736