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 .
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.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al. (US 8181789) in view of Tilton et al. (US 5803260).
Re claim 1, Casella et al. teaches a tamper evident card package comprising:
a first portion formed of plastic polymer and defining a cavity extending from a base surface of the first portion (114);
a second portion comprising a of plastic polymer joined to the first portion at a seal extending around at least a portion of a perimeter of the tamper evident card package, wherein the first portion and the second portion are coupled so as to form a unitary structure at the seal (base 20); and
an insert contained between the first portion and the second portion, the insert comprising a single point-of-sale activated card and machine readable activation information for the point-of-sale activated card visible from an exterior of the tamper evident card package (FIG. 5 shows a card ).
Though silent to explicitly reciting a flat sheet, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a flat sheet such as for aesthetics/ design variation. FIG. 1-5 are taught that the encasement is clear plastic and is sealed on its margins by RF laser seal. A card 110 inside is viewable. Though silent to activation information being viewable, it would have been obvious that viewable information could be seen through the transparent plastic. Types of information is non-descriptive functional material, and would have been obvious based on system constraints.
Casella et al. is silent to seal around an entirety of the perimeter, though Casella et al. teaches laminated card stock can be used in different embodiments, those different embodiments obviating RF sealing at the edges due to their construction, for expected results of security (FIG. 8 for example).
Tilton teaches such limitations (abstract+) of plastic sealed packages using RF sealing around a perimeter of the package (FIG. 4+) which .
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide for thing sealing for security while leaving space for graphics etc. with a small size seal for packaging.
Re claim 2, FIG. 4 teaches 1/16” seal width (Tilton),while also the Examiner notes would have been obvious to have a specific size such as to provide a seal for security while also considering size, costs, aesthetics. Such selection of an optimum value/ size would have been within the ordinary skill in the art, as the general conditions are taught, such as for system/ design constraints.
Re claim 3, the seal prevents access.
Re claim 5, RF sealing has been discussed above.
Re claim 6, the coupling forms a sealed package.
Re claim 7, the encasement is RF sealed along its peripheral margin (col 3, lines 57+) and also has a hanging aperture 124. It would have been obvious to seal between the cavity and aperture to seal the package along the cavity periphery for security.
Re claim 11, intended use of the device is not patentable. Nonetheless, as alignment is desirous, it would have been obvious to use the cavity to align for quality control purposes.
Rec alim 12, the notches to are shown in FIG. 5. Intended use is not patentable for the device, and method of forming limitations that do not recite structural limitations of the structure are not seen as structurally limiting, as the prior art structure is able to read on such limitations..
Re claim 13, the limtaitons have been discussed above. A blister is interpreted as a cavity. The RF sealing is intpereted to fuse the two portions, though forming a continuous single
package. A hanging aperture has been discussed above, as has an insert. Sealing between the aperture and the blister has been discussed above as an obvious expedient for sealing for security.
Re claim 14, RF sealing has been discussed above.
Re claim 16, carrier reads on the support limitations.
Re claim 17, sealing along the perimeter of the package is an obvious expedient for secure sealing.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton, as discussed above, in view of Morgan et al. (US 20140291189).
The teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above, wherein Casella et al. teaches a clamshell/ protrusion, there is a surface spaced out from the base. Tilton teaches a cavity and while silent to “sidewalls” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for sidewalls in order to provide the space.
Though silent to sidewalls (linear/ not curved cavity) the change of cavity shape is an obvious matter of design variation.
Nonetheless, Morgan et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0031]+ and FIG. 3+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings such as for design variation/ aesthetics/ desired shape, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton, as discussed above, in view of Croft (US 5636497).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Casella et al./ Tilton have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton, as discussed above, in view of Dickman et al. (US 20220339955).
Re claim 8, the hanging aperture has been taught but the prior art is silent to sealing so that the aperture is between the cavity and sealing.
Dickman et al. teaches sealing above the aperture through the use of margins 20. Dickman et al. teaches a access opening 34.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to seal the edges of the assembly for security and visual confirmation.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton, as discussed above, in view of Schmitt et al. (US 20100219099).
Re claims 9 and 15, the teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above but is silent to plural cards. Information is visible from outside, and the type of information is non-functional descriptive material not structurally related to the substrate. Tilton teaches windows that are operable to have point of sale cards but is silent to explicitly reciting point of sale cards.
Schmitt et al. teaches plural cards in a secure package (FIG. 1+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for more accommodation of cards.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton, as discussed above, in view of Tang (US 10248816).
Re claim 18, the teachings of Casella et al./ Tilton have been discussed above but are silent to a plate and die.
Tang teaches such limitations via the tooling plate 104 which is used for the cavities, and therefore a die to aid is sealing such as heavy plate 192 to press, is equivalent to a platen (die) that presses to ensure proper sealing. As RF sealing has been discussed above, a power source is implicit.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to use known manufacturing techniques for form and seal the packages.
Re claim 19, a die (platen ) has a shape.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Tilton/Tang, as discussed above, in view of Croft, as discussed above.
The teachings of Casella et al./ Tilton/ Tang have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations. The Examiner notes that though silent to 2 separate dies, Croft teaches that the second seal is provided under the aperture as taught above, and together with perimeter sealing is functionally equivalent. When the general conditions are taught, forming in separate parts something integral involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally/ alternatively, the various pressing parts of the die can be interpreted as first and second dies together forming the sealing die 60.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al. (US 8181789) in view of Giovannone et al. (US 5379572).
Re claim 1, Casella et al. teaches a tamper evident card package comprising:
a first portion formed of plastic polymer and defining a cavity extending from a base surface of the first portion (114);
a second portion comprising a of plastic polymer joined to the first portion at a seal extending around at least a portion of a perimeter of the tamper evident card package, wherein the first portion and the second portion are coupled so as to form a unitary structure at the seal (base 20); and
an insert contained between the first portion and the second portion, the insert comprising a single point-of-sale activated card and machine readable activation information for the point-of-sale activated card visible from an exterior of the tamper evident card package (FIG. 5 shows a card ).
Though silent to explicitly reciting a flat sheet, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a flat sheet such as for aesthetics/ design variation. FIG. 1-5 are taught that the encasement is clear plastic and is sealed on its margins by RF laser seal. A card 110 inside is viewable. Though silent to activation information being viewable, it would have been obvious that viewable information could be seen through the transparent plastic. Types of information is non-descriptive functional material, and would have been obvious based on system constraints.
Casella et al. is silent to seal around an entirety of the perimeter.
Giovannone teaches such limitations (col 1, lines 18+) of the use of RF heating to seal plastic film packages (two films/ layers) along its outer edges such as to seal.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide for thing sealing for security while leaving space for graphics etc. with a small size seal for packaging.
Re claim 2, the Examiner notes such limitations would have been obvious to have a specific size such as to provide a seal for security while also considering size, costs, aesthetics. Such selection of an optimum value/ size would have been within the ordinary skill in the art, as the general conditions are taught, such as for system/ design constraints.
Re claim 3, the seal prevents access.
Re claim 5, RF sealing has been discussed above.
Re claim 6, the coupling forms a sealed package.
Re claim 7, the encasement is RF sealed along its peripheral margin (col 3, lines 57+) and also has a hanging aperture 124. It would have been obvious to seal between the cavity and aperture to seal the package along the cavity periphery for security.
Re claim 11, intended use of the device is not patentable. Nonetheless, as alignment is desirous, it would have been obvious to use the cavity to align for quality control purposes.
Rec alim 12, the notches to are shown in FIG. 5. Intended use is not patentable for the device, and method of forming limitations that do not recite structural limitations of the structure are not seen as structurally limiting, as the prior art structure is able to read on such limitations.
Re claim 13, the limtaitons have been discussed above. A blister is interpreted as a cavity. The RF sealing is intpereted to fuse the two portions, though forming a continuous single package. A hanging aperture has been discussed above, as has an insert. Sealing between the aperture and the blister has been discussed above as an obvious expedient for sealing for security.
Re claim 14, RF sealing has been discussed above. Re claim 16, carrier reads on the support limitations.
Re claim 17, sealing along the perimeter of the package is an obvious expedient for secure sealing.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Tilton as discussed above.
The teachings of Casella et al./ Giovannone have been discussed above but is silent to 1/16”.
Tilton teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for narrow sealing widths for package appearances.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Morgan et al. (US 20140291189).
The teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above, wherein Casella et al. teaches a clamshell/ protrusion, there is a surface spaced out from the base.
Though silent to sidewalls (linear/ not curved cavity) the change of cavity shape is an obvious matter of design variation.
Nonetheless, Morgan et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0031]+ and FIG. 3+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings such as for design variation/ aesthetics/ desired shape, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Croft (US 5636497).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Casella et al./ Giovannone have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Dickman et al. (US 20220339955).
Re claim 8, the hanging aperture has been taught but the prior art is silent to sealing so that the aperture is between the cavity and sealing.
Dickman et al. teaches sealing above the aperture through the use of margins 20. Dickman et al. teaches a access opening 34.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to seal the edges of the assembly for security and visual confirmation.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Schmitt et al. (US 20100219099).
Re claims 9 and 15, the teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above but is silent to plural cards. Information is visible from outside, and the type of information is non-functional descriptive material not structurally related to the substrate.
Schmitt et al. teaches plural cards in a secure package (FIG. 1+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for more accommodation of cards.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone, as discussed above, in view of Tang (US 10248816).
Re claim 18, the teachings of Casella et al./ Giovannone have been discussed above but are silent to a plate and die.
Tang teaches such limitations via the tooling plate 104 which is used for the cavities, and therefore a die to aid is sealing such as heavy plate 192 to press, is equivalent to a platen (die) that presses to ensure proper sealing. As RF sealing has been discussed above, a power source is implicit.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to use known manufacturing techniques for form and seal the packages.
Re claim 19, a die (platen ) has a shape.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Giovannone/ Tang, as discussed above, in view of Croft, as discussed above.
The teachings of Casella et al./ Giovannone / Tang have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations. The Examiner notes that though silent to 2 separate dies, Croft teaches that the second seal is provided under the aperture as taught above, and together with perimeter sealing is functionally equivalent. When the general conditions are taught, forming in separate parts something integral involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally/ alternatively, the various pressing parts of the die can be interpreted as first and second dies together forming the sealing die 60.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al. (US 8181789) in view of Giovannone et al. (US 5379572).
Re claim 1, Casella et al. teaches a tamper evident card package comprising:
a first portion formed of plastic polymer and defining a cavity extending from a base surface of the first portion (114);
a second portion comprising a of plastic polymer joined to the first portion at a seal extending around at least a portion of a perimeter of the tamper evident card package, wherein the first portion and the second portion are coupled so as to form a unitary structure at the seal (base 20); and
an insert contained between the first portion and the second portion, the insert comprising a single point-of-sale activated card and machine readable activation information for the point-of-sale activated card visible from an exterior of the tamper evident card package (FIG. 5 shows a card ).
Though silent to explicitly reciting a flat sheet, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a flat sheet such as for aesthetics/ design variation. FIG. 1-5 are taught that the encasement is clear plastic and is sealed on its margins by RF laser seal. A card 110 inside is viewable. Though silent to activation information being viewable, it would have been obvious that viewable information could be seen through the transparent plastic. Types of information is non-descriptive functional material, and would have been obvious based on system constraints.
Casella et al. is silent to seal around an entirety of the perimeter.
Young et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0004]+ which teaches PVC clamshell packages are RF sealed along the edges to seal the package). It would have been obvious that sealing the edges to make a hard to open product (security) obviates the entirety of the perimeter, motivated by security of the package.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide for thing sealing for security while leaving space for graphics etc. with a small size seal for packaging.
Re claim 2, the Examiner notes such limitations would have been obvious to have a specific size such as to provide a seal for security while also considering size, costs, aesthetics. Such selection of an optimum value/ size would have been within the ordinary skill in the art, as the general conditions are taught, such as for system/ design constraints.
Re claim 3, the seal prevents access.
Re claim 5, RF sealing has been discussed above. Re claim 6, the coupling forms a sealed package.
Re claim 7, the encasement is RF sealed along its peripheral margin (col 3, lines 57+) and also has a hanging aperture 124. It would have been obvious to seal between the cavity and aperture to seal the package along the cavity periphery for security.
Re claim 11, intended use of the device is not patentable. Nonetheless, as alignment is desirous, it would have been obvious to use the cavity to align for quality control purposes.
Rec alim 12, the notches to are shown in FIG. 5. Intended use is not patentable for the device, and method of forming limitations that do not recite structural limitations of the structure are not seen as structurally limiting, as the prior art structure is able to read on such limitations..
Re claim 13, the limtaitons have been discussed above. A blister is interpreted as a cavity. The RF sealing is intpereted to fuse the two portions, though forming a continuous single
package. A hanging aperture has been discussed above, as has an insert. Sealing between the aperture and the blister has been discussed above as an obvious expedient for sealing for security.
Re claim 14, RF sealing has been discussed above. Re claim 16, carrier reads on the support limitations.
Re claim 17, sealing along the perimeter of the package is an obvious expedient for secure sealing.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Tilton as discussed above.
The teachings of Casella et al./ Young et al. have been discussed above but is silent o 1/16”.
Tilton teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for narrow sealing widths for package appearances.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Morgan et al. (US 20140291189).
The teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above, wherein Casella et al. teaches a clamshell/ protrusion, there is a surface spaced out from the base.
Though silent to sidewalls (linear/ not curved cavity) the change of cavity shape is an obvious matter of design variation.
Nonetheless, Morgan et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0031]+ and FIG. 3+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings such as for design variation/ aesthetics/ desired shape, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Croft (US 5636497).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Casella et al./ Young et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Dickman et al. (US 20220339955).
Re claim 8, the hanging aperture has been taught but the prior art is silent to sealing so that the aperture is between the cavity and sealing.
Dickman et al. teaches sealing above the aperture through the use of margins 20. Dickman et al. teaches a access opening 34.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to seal the edges of the assembly for security and visual confirmation.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Schmitt et al. (US 20100219099).
Re claims 9 and 15, the teachings of Casella et al. have been discussed above but is silent to plural cards. Information is visible from outside, and the type of information is non-functional descriptive material not structurally related to the substrate.
Schmitt et al. teaches plural cards in a secure package (FIG. 1+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for more accommodation of cards.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al., as discussed above, in view of Tang (US 10248816).
Re claim 18, the teachings of Casella et al./ Young et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a plate and die.
Tang teaches such limitations via the tooling plate 104 which is used for the cavities, and therefore a die to aid is sealing such as heavy plate 192 to press, is equivalent to a platen (die) that presses to ensure proper sealing. As RF sealing has been discussed above, a power source is implicit.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to use known manufacturing techniques for form and seal the packages.
Re claim 19, a die (platen ) has a shape.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casella et al./ Young et al./ Tang, as discussed above, in view of Croft, as discussed above.
The teachings of Casella et al./ Young et al./ Tang have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations. The Examiner notes that though silent to 2 separate dies, Croft teaches that the second seal is provided under the aperture as taught above, and together with perimeter sealing is functionally equivalent. When the general conditions are taught, forming in separate parts something integral involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally/ alternatively, the various pressing parts of the die can be interpreted as first and second dies together forming the sealing die 60.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al. (US 20020162764).
Sherline et al. teaches the claim 1 limitations (FIG. 1+ which teaches two plastic layers forming a cavity for a product between with the periphery sealed by RF means.
Sherline et al. is silent to the insert/ card.
Casella et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a desired product package.
Re claim 3, the limitations are discussed above re the RF sealing.
Re claim 4, FIG. 1+ shows sidewalls.
Re claim 5, RF sealing has been discussed above.
Re claim 6, the sealing is interpreted dot form a continuous piece.
Re claim 11, cavity alignment is used as part of manufacture and assembly.
Re claim 12, the notices can be interpreted as part of the grooves (FIG. 2+).
Re claim 13-14, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claims 16-17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al./ Casella et al., as discussed above, in view of Tilton, as discussed above.
The teachings of Sherline et al./ Casella et al. have been discussed above but are silent to 1/16”.
Tilton teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for product package enhancements.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al. Casella et al., as discussed above, in view of Croft (US 5636497).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Sherline et al./ Casella et al have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al. / Casella et al., as discussed above, in view of Dickman et al. (US 20220339955).
Re claim 8, the hanging aperture has been taught but the prior art is silent to sealing so that the aperture is between the cavity and sealing.
Dickman et al. teaches sealing above the aperture through the use of margins 20. Dickman et al. teaches a access opening 34.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to seal the edges of the assembly for security and visual confirmation.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al./ Casella et al., as discussed above, in view of Schmitt et al. (US 20100219099).
Re claims 9 and 15, the teachings of Sherline et al./ Casella et al. have been discussed above but is silent to plural cards. Information is visible from outside, and the type of information is non-functional descriptive material not structurally related to the substrate.
Schmitt et al. teaches plural cards in a secure package (FIG. 1+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for more accommodation of cards.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al./ Casella et al. as discussed above, in view of Tang (US 10248816).
Re claim 18, the teachings of Sherline et al./ Casella et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a plate and die.
Tang teaches such limitations via the tooling plate 104 which is used for the cavities, and therefore a die to aid is sealing such as heavy plate 192 to press, is equivalent to a platen (die) that presses to ensure proper sealing. As RF sealing has been discussed above, a power source is implicit.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to use known manufacturing techniques for form and seal the packages.
Re claim 19, a die (platen ) has a shape.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherline et al./ Casella et al., as discussed above, in view of Croft, as discussed above.
The teachings of Sherline et al./ Casella et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting sealing between the cavity and hanging aperture.
Croft teaches such limitations (col 4, lines 14+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for additional sealing locations. The Examiner notes that though silent to 2 separate dies, Croft teaches that the second seal is provided under the aperture as taught above, and together with perimeter sealing is functionally equivalent. When the general conditions are taught, forming in separate parts something integral involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally/ alternatively, the various pressing parts of the die can be interpreted as first and second dies together forming the sealing die 60.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered and they persuasive. The Examiner notes this action is NON-FINAL as it addresses claim 10 incorporated into the independent claims.
The Examiner has cited multiple new art supporting sealing around the entire periphery as an obvious expedient for security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2887
Prosecution Insights