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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. See also MPEP 2004, example 13, it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
Claim 21 is 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. The limitation “the at least one arm side section” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is referring to the previous “side section” recited in the claim, or if it is referring to the “optional side section” of each arm from the plurality of arms of claim 10. In case, applicant is referring the “optional side section” of each arm from the plurality of arms of claim 10, then the claim is still indefinite because claim 21 requires a limitation from an optional structure. In case applicant is referring to the previously “side section” recited in claim 21, then the recited “the at least one arm side section” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 21, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fawdington (EP 3,045,071).
Claim 1
Fawdington discloses a contact lens package comprising a lid (4); a base (1 in combination with 3) comprising a cavity (defined by interior of the base) that houses a contact lens (45) and packaging solution (see abstract); and a lifting means comprising a lever (defined by any of handle portions 42 or 52); and a lens support (defined by any of the structures that supports a lens in figures 15-18) capable of maintaining the contact lens in a convex position on the support during storage and upon opening of the package, the lens support coupled to the lever and configured to lift the contact lens out of the packaging solution in a position on the lens support capable of single-touch transfer by a user (see figures 15-18 and [0032]).
Claim 2
Fawdington further discloses the lever and the lens support are a unitary component that is fixedly attached to a front section (defined by area pointed by reference numeral 12 in figure 3) of the base.
Claim 3
Fawdington further discloses the base comprises at least one material selected from a flat sheet of plastic (see [0005]).
Claim 4
Fawdington further discloses the base comprises plastic, and the lid comprises foil (see [005] and [0023]).
Claim 5
Fawdington further discloses the lever and the lens support are a single unitary component (see figures 15-18).
Claim 7
Fawdington further discloses the lifting means raises the lens from the packaging solution by tilting the lens support and base away from each other to an angle of about 15° to about 80° (see figures 15-17).
Claim 8
Fawdington further discloses the lens support has open structure (see figure 15-17).
Claim 10
Fawdington further discloses the lens support comprises a plurality of arms (64 including arms between projections 66 and 67 forming a cross; or defined by arms formed between channels 43) each arm comprising a flat top section (defined by top surface of the arm) (see figures 15 and 18).
Claim 11
Fawdington further discloses the plurality of arms in the flat top section connect to each other in a center point under the lens apex (see figure 18).
Claim 12
Fawdington further discloses at least a partial ring (44) connected to the elongated peripheral supports/arms (see figure 15).
Claim 14
Fawdington further discloses the lever comprises at least one peripheral support (defined by structure between channels 43) that is elongated and comprises an opening (defined by channels 43) extending distally before the periphery of the contact lens to form a drainage channel for the drainage of packaging solution from the contact lens and the lens support (see figure 15 and [0032]).
Claim 21
Fawdington further discloses the lens support comprises at least one side section (41) and the lens does not contact the at least one arm side sections (see figure 15).
Claim 22
Fawdington further discloses a reservoir (defined by interior surface of the base) for capturing packaging solution when the lens and support are separated from the package base (see figures 9, 12, [0026] and [0028]).
Claim 24
Fawdington further discloses the base is substantially flat. Fawdington discloses flange (3) being part of the base, wherein the flange is substantially flat (see figure 3).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawdington (EP 3,045,071) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (US 2015/0150346).
Fawdington is silent disclosing how the lever is coupled to the base. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Yasuda discloses a connecting member (36) attached to an interior surface of a lid (16) by adhesion or welding (see [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lever and the base attached by welding or adhesion between each other, as taught by Yasuda, because welding and/or adhesion are known and nominal methods of having different structures integrated to each other.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fawdington (EP 3,045,071) as applied to claim 1 above.
The lens (45) disclosed by Fawdington is capable to be placed in convex position with respect to the support. Fawdington further discloses the lens comprising an apex (defined by highest point or center of the lens) centered in the optic zone, and the support comprising a central support (defined by center of the support structure) (see figures 15 and 18). Fawdington does not disclose a central support having a height, measured from the lens periphery, of not greater than 0.5mm below the contact lens apex. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the central support being with the required distance, i.e. at most 5mm below the contact lens apex, depending on the size of the periphery of the lens in which the surface extending from the apex of the lens contact the surface of the support periphery. When the lens is disposed in convex position with respect to the support, depending on the size of the lens in which a portion of the lens periphery contacts a support periphery, the required distance between the lens apex and the central support could be met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15-20 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights