DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
2. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
3. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
4. Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 13-22, drawn to a blister sealing film.
Group II, claims 23 and 24, drawn to a method for producing a blister sealing film.
5. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The technical feature of Groups I and II appears to be the blister sealing film. However, the technical feature of Group I cannot be a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because the technical feature is shown in the prior art. Miller et al. (US 2009/0008285 A1 cited in IDS) disclose a blister sealing film.
6. Miller et al. disclose a multi-layer lidding component (blister sealing film) comprises a nonwoven layer 5, a barrier layer 7 and heat-seal layer 8 (see Figure 2a and paragraph 0033). The nonwoven layer comprises fibers or filaments made of polymers such as polypropylene (second plastic) (see paragraphs 0021, 0038, 0041). The barrier layer can be a mono-layer film made of polypropylene (first plastic) (see paragraph 0035). The first plastic and the second plastic are predominantly based on the same polymers. Further, the multi-layer lidding component is used to prepare a blister package, wherein the blister package comprises a blister component and a multi-layer lidding component (see page 9, claim 1). Accordingly, the multi-layer lidding component reads on a blister sealing film.
7. Since Applicant’s inventions do not contribute a special technical feature when viewed over the prior art they do not have a single general inventive concept and so lack unity of invention. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
8. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
9. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
10. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
11. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
12. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
13. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
14. During a telephone conversation with Norman P. Soloway on 03/31/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 13-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 13-22 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 3 recites “at least to 70 percent”, which should be “at least 70 percent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 3 recites “a group comprising” which should be “the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 5 recites “(PET) or polycarbonate (PC)” which should be “(PET), polycarbonate (PC)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 5, recites “10.5 mm≤ deviates by 30%”, which should be “10.5 mm deviates by ≤ 30%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18, line 1 recites “The lister sealing film”, which should be “The blister sealing film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 1 recites “a blister sealing film”, which should be “the blister sealing film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22, line 3 recites “the blisterbottom film”, which should be “the blister bottom film”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-22 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 13, line 3 recites “the fibers of which”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear if the “fibers of which” refer to the fibers of the nonwoven or if the “fibers” refer to fibers in the first plastic. For the purpose of examination, the examiner construes that the “fibers” refer to the fibers of nonwoven. It is suggested that the claim 13 is amended to recite “fibers of the nonwoven”. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 13, line 4 recites “predominantly”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is considered as predominantly or what amounts of polymers (50 wt%, 80 wt%, etc.) this phrase encompasses. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 13, line 4 recites “same” polymers/copolymers. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is considered “same”. Does this refer to the same type of polymers, i.e. polyethylene and polypropylene are the same given that they are both polyolefins, or does it refer to identical polymers, i.e. both first plastic and second plastic are polyethylene.
Claim 14 recites “preferably”, “more preferably” and “in particular preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” or “more preferably” or “in particular preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following these phrases.
Claim 15 recites “preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following this phrase.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites multiple instances of “preferably” and “in particular preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” or “in particular preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following these phrases.
Claim 17 recites “a force acting on the blister sealing film”. The scope of claim 17 is confusing given that it is not clear what is being claimed. Is the claim requiring a punctured blister sealing film? Or a property of the blister sealing film? Or should claim 17 depend on claim 14 wherein the force is part of a puncture resistance test? Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites “preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following this phrase.
Claim 18 recites “preferably”, “more preferably” and multiple instances of “in particular preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” or “more preferably” or “in particular preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following these phrases.
Claim 18, lines 4-5 recites “compared to first plastic comprising a test specimen”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what type of material is included or considered a test specimen. Further, it is not clear what is meant by “compared to first plastic”. Does this refer to the sealable layer having a seal strength that is higher/lower than the first plastic? Clarification is requested. For purposes of examination, a sealable layer meeting the claimed sealing temperature and seal strength is considered to meet claim 18.
Claim 19 recites “preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following this phrase.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the hot bonding method" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "The blister package" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22, line 3 recites that the blister bottom film and blister sealing film each “consist of at least 80 percent by weight…of a plastic”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear how the blister bottom film and blister sealing film can consist of a plastic when the amount of plastic can be 80 wt% given that consisting implies 100 wt% plastic.
Claim 22 recites multiple instances of “preferably”, “more preferably” and multiple instances of “in particular preferably”. The scope of the claim is confusing since the use of the phrase “preferably” or “more preferably” or “in particular preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the claim actually requires the limitations following these phrases.
Claim 22, line 7 recites “same” polymers/copolymers. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is considered “same”. Does this refer to the same type of polymers, i.e. polyethylene and polypropylene are the same given that they are both polyolefins, or does it refer to identical polymers, i.e. both first plastic and second plastic are polyethylene.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 13-15, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2009/0008285 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 13-15, Miller et al. disclose a multi-layer lidding component (blister sealing film) comprises a nonwoven layer 5, a barrier layer 7 and heat-seal layer 8 (see Figure 2a and paragraph 0033). The nonwoven layer comprises fibers or filaments made of polymers such as polypropylene (second plastic) (see paragraphs 0021, 0038, 0041). The barrier layer can be a mono-layer film made of polypropylene (first plastic) (see paragraph 0035). The first plastic and the second plastic are predominantly based on the same polymers. Given that the nonwoven layer and the barrier layer can be made of only polypropylene (first plastic and second plastic), the first plastic and the second plastic are based on 100 wt% of polypropylene.
Further, the multi-layer lidding component is used to prepare a blister package, wherein the blister package comprises a blister component and a multi-layer lidding component (see page 9, claim 1). Accordingly, the multi-layer lidding component reads on a blister sealing film.
In light of the overlap between the claimed blister sealing film and that disclosed by Miller et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blister sealing film that is both disclosed by Miller et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Miller et al. disclose the blister sealing film comprises the nonwoven layer 5 laminated to the barrier layer 7 (layer of the first plastic) (see Figure 2a and 0029).
Regarding claim 21, Miller et al. disclose a blister package comprising a blister component (blister bottom film) and a multi-layer lidding component (blister sealing film) (see page 9, claim 1).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2009/0008285 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Fuji (JP2002019003A). It is noted that the disclosures of Fuji are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Miller et al. disclose the blister sealing film comprising the first plastic and nonwoven as set forth above. Miller et al. do not disclose a thickness of the first plastic and/or nonwoven is selected to achieve a puncture resistance as presently claimed.
Fuji discloses a lid material comprising film made of polypropylene resin (see paragraph 0009). The film has sufficient thickness such that it maintains strength, puncture resistance and rigidity (see paragraph 0009). Specifically, the thickness of film is 10 to 100 microns in order to provide puncture resistance as well as prevent increasing cost (see paragraph 0009).
Therefore, as taught by Fuji, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of first plastic made of polypropylene in Miller et al. such that the blister sealing film has puncture resistance including that presently claimed and prevents increasing cost, and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Further, given that the first plastic (barrier layer) of Miller et al. is made of polypropylene identical to that presently claimed and given that first plastic has puncture resistance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply force, including steadily increasing the force, in order to determine the force required for puncture resistance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2009/0008285 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Trouilhet et al. (US 2005/0182197 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Miller et al. disclose the blister sealing film comprising a nonwoven layer 5, a barrier layer 7 and heat-seal layer 8 (see Figure 2a and paragraph 0033). Further, Miller et al. disclose that the heat seal layer can be blend of polyolefin resin comprising ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer (see page 9, claim 5).
Miller et al. do not disclose the heat seal layer as presently claimed.
Trouilhet et al. disclose a sealant composition comprising a blend of propylene polymer and ethylene methyl acrylate polymer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0021, 0025-0026). The composition provides excellent properties heat seal strength, SIT, melting temperature and hot tack (see paragraphs 0011, 0012). Further, heat seal strength values are desired to be equal or below about 10 N/15 mm in temperature range of up to 160 °C for peelable seals and provide an easy opening performance of films and packaging (see paragraphs 0072, 0074). The sealant composition can be used as a sealant layer in a lid packaging (see paragraph 0039). A specific example of the sealant film includes film 22 comprising 80 wt% polypropylene polymer and 20 wt% ethylene methyl acrylate polymer having heat seal strength of 0.5 to 9.0 N/15 mm in temperature range of 110 to 160 °C (see paragraph 0054, Table II, Comp. 22 and paragraph 0073, Table V, HSS film 22).
In light of motivation for using sealant layer disclosed by Trouilhet et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use sealant layer of Trouilhet et al. as the heat seal layer in Miller et al. order to provide excellent properties heat seal strength, SIT, melting temperature and hot tack as well as provide an easy opening performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosentino et al. (US 2004/0132363 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 13-15, Cosentino et al. disclose a tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) comprising a top layer 12 is a biaxially oriented polymer film made of polyester (first plastic) and a scrim layer 20 comprising nonwoven fibrous material made of polyester (second plastic) (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0032, 0042). That is, the first plastic and the second plastic are predominantly based on the same polymers. Given that the top layer and the scrim layer can be made of only polyester (first plastic and second plastic), the first plastic and the second plastic are based on 100 wt% of polyester. Further, a blister type container is adhered to the bottom surface 17 of the scrim layer 20 (see Figure 1-2 and paragraph 0044). That is, the tear resistant seal structure is adhered to the blister type container. Therefore, the tear resistant seal structure is a blister sealing film.
In light of the overlap between the claimed blister sealing film and that disclosed by Cosentino et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blister sealing film that is both disclosed by Cosentino et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Cosentino et al. disclose the scrim layer (nonwoven) comprising the second plastic is laminated to the top layer 12 comprising polyester (first plastic) (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 20, Cosentino et al. disclose the tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) comprising the top layer 12 comprising a biaxially oriented polymer film made of polyester (first plastic) and the scrim layer 20 comprising nonwoven fibrous material made of polyester (second plastic) (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0032, 0042).
Regarding claim 21, Consentino et al. the tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) comprising the top layer 12 comprising a biaxially oriented polymer film made of polyester (first plastic) and the scrim layer 20 (nonwoven) made of polyester (second plastic) as set forth above. Further, a blister type container is adhered to the bottom surface 17 of the scrim layer 20 (see Figure 1-2 and paragraph 0044). That is, the tear resistant seal structure is adhered to the blister type container. Therefore, the tear resistant seal structure is a blister sealing film. The blister type container reads on a blister bottom film. The tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) and the blister type container (blister bottom film) together read on a blister package (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0044).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosentino et al. (US 2004/0132363 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Miller et al. (US 2009/0008285 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 22, Cosentino et al. disclose the blister package comprising the tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) and the blister type container (blister bottom film) as set forth above. Further the tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) comprising the top layer 12 is a biaxially oriented polymer film made of polyester (first plastic) and the scrim layer 20 (nonwoven) is made of polyester (second plastic) as set forth above. Further, a thermal bonding layer 18 is provided between the top layer and the scrim layer, wherein the thermal bonding layer comprises polyester (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0037). Given that all of the top layer 12, thermal bonding layer 18 and the scrim layer 20 can be made of only polyester, the tear resistant seal structure (blister sealing film) consists of 100 wt% of polyester as a plastic.
While Cosentino et al. disclose a blister type container (blister bottom film) is adhered to the bottom surface 17 of the scrim layer 20 (see Figure 1-2 and paragraph 0044), Cosentino et al. do not disclose the blister type container consists of a plastic based on the same polymers/copolymers as the blister sealing film.
Miller et al. disclose a blister package comprising a blister component (blister bottom film) and a lidding component (blister sealing film) (see page 9, claim 1). The blister component can be a barrier layer made of polyester (see paragraphs 0032, 0035).
In light of motivation for using a blister component made of polyester disclosed by Miller et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use blister type container made of polyester in Cosentino et al. in order to provide barrier properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the blister type container (blister bottom film) comprises 100 wt% polyester, a plastic based on the same polymers/copolymer as the blister sealing film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights