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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated that claims 1-10 correspond to the elected Group I. However, Examiner notes that claims 1-9 were previously canceled by a preliminary amendment on 5/13/2025 and are presented as canceled in the claim set filed 6/16/2026. As stated in the Restriction Requirement of 5/14/2026, claims 10-15 correspond to Group I and claims 16-19 correspond to non-elected Group II. Therefore, claims 10-15 will be examined on their merits at this time and claims 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101597150 in view of Beguhn (US 4,236,652), Redmond (US 3,986,640) and Genosar et al. (US 8,662,349).
Regarding claim 10, KR 101597150 discloses a sealed single-dose package (See Figs. 1-3) with break opening (as shown in Fig. 2), comprising: a semi-rigid sheet (at 200) comprising a rear face (bottom face of 200 in Fig. 3) and an opposite front face (top face of 200 in Fig. 3), the semi-rigid sheet being a multilayer (at 210/220/230) comprising: a carrier layer (230) having the rear face; an inner layer (at 210) having the front face; a metal barrier layer (220) interposed between the carrier layer and the inner layer, the metal barrier layer being made of aluminum (See [0025]); a flexible sheet (at 100) comprising an inner face (lower face of 100 in Fig. 3) and an outer face (upper face of 100 in Fig. 3), overlapped on the semi-rigid sheet so that the inner face faces the front face (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), and attached to the front face to form an inner pocket (between 100 and 210 in Fig. 3) capable of containing one dose of a product; an outer incision (lower portion of 300, below 220 in Fig. 3) on the rear face of the semi-rigid sheet, at the inner pocket, which only involves the carrier layer; and an inner incision (upper portion of 300, above 220 in Fig. 3) on the front face of the semi-rigid sheet, at the inner pocket, which only involves the inner layer, the inner incision being a laser incision ([0025]), and wherein the inner incision only partially interrupts the inner layer, and the metal barrier layer remains covered by a residual portion of the inner layer. KR 101597150 discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the inner and carrier layers and the specific attachment between the flexible sheet and the front face of the semi-rigid sheet.
Regarding the specific material of the inner layer, Beguhn teaches it is well known in the art for a dispensing package (See Figs. 1-3) to be formed from a multilayered material, wherein the bottom member of the package is formed with a polyethylene layer for the purpose of having a relatively high tensile strength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner layer of KR 101597150 to include polyethylene as taught by Beguhn in order to improve the tensile strength of the device. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the specific material of the carrier layer, Redmond teaches it is well known in the art for a dispensing package to be formed from a multilayered material, wherein the bottom member of the package is formed with a cardboard layer for the purpose of forming a stiff but flexible layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier layer of KR 101597150-Beguhn to include cardboard as taught by Redmond in order to increase stiffness of the package. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the specific attachment between the flexible sheet and the front face of the semi-rigid sheet, Genosar teaches it is well known in the art for a flexible reservoir portion (at 21/29) of a dispensing package to be welded to a backing portion for the purpose of securely connecting the portions of the dispensing package (column 6, line 50 – column 7, line 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the flexible sheet and the semi-rigid sheet of KR 101597150-Beguhn-Redmond to be formed by welding as taught by Genosar in order to provide a secure connection between the portions of the package.
Regarding claims 11-12, KR 101597150 discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the flexible sheet. However, Beguhn teaches it is well known in the art for a dispensing package (See Figs. 1-3) to be formed from a multilayered material, wherein the flexible top member of the package is formed with a polyethylene and paper with aluminum foil therebetween for the purpose of having desired characteristics (column 3, lines 22-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible sheet of KR 101597150 to include polyethylene, paper and aluminum foil as taught by Beguhn in order to have desired characteristics. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, KR 101597150 discloses the outer incision has a depth, measured from the rear face, that varies transversely along the outer incision (as shown in Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 14, KR 101597150 discloses the depth is greatest in a central segment of the outer incision.
Regarding claim 15, KR 101597150 discloses the outer incision does not reach the metal barrier layer and a residual portion of the carrier layer remains interposed between the outer incision and the metal barrier layer (as shown in Figs. 3-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights