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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cassidy et al. (US 20180079576 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Cassidy teaches a tabbed sealing member having a width for sealing to a rim surrounding a container opening, the sealing member comprising: a multi-layer laminate including an upper laminate portion (106) partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (112) forming a gripping tab, the gripping tap configured for removing the sealing member from the container opening (Cassidy, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0032-0040, 0062, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion is positioned below the gripping tab and includes a heat seal layer (118) for bonding to the container rim (Cassidy, Par. 0040, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the upper laminate portion includes an induction heating layer (metal foil, 114) for providing heat to the heat seal layer in the lower laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0004, 0040, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches that the upper laminate portion comprises a release layer (100) that comprises a polymer foam layer, and thus teaches the upper laminate portion comprises a polymer foam layer (Cassidy, Par. 0040-0042, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches the polymer foam layer is a folded layer, that when laid straight out extends the entire width of the tabbed sealing member (Cassidy, Figs 1-3b, 8-12, and 16-18b). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion comprises a heat seal layer, an optional polymer layer, and a foil (Cassidy, Par. 0040). The polymer layer is optional and the foil may be moved to the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0062). Therefore, Cassidy teaches embodiments wherein the lower laminate consists of only the heat seal layer.
Alternatively, regarding the upper laminate portion comprising a polymer foam layer, Cassidy teaches the tabbed sealing member can comprise a polymer foam layer (109) that can be placed at various locations in the laminate, including in the upper laminate portion, and that extends the entire width of the tabbed sealing member (Cassidy, Par. 0056-0057, and Figs 1-2, 8, and 12).
Regarding claim 3, Cassidy teaches a polymer film layer (116) (Cassidy, Par. 0018, 0040, and Figs. 8 and 12). It is noted that the polymer film layer may also be interpreted as the optional tab layer of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Cassidy teaches the lower laminate may comprise a metal foil, but the metal foil can be moved to the upper laminate (Cassidy, Par. 0040 and 0062, Fig 12). Cassidy thus teaches embodiments wherein the metal foil is in the upper laminate and thus the lower laminate is free of metal foil.
Regarding claim 8, Cassidy teaches a liner portion positioned above the upper laminate portion, the liner portion being separable from the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0072-0073 and Fig. 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy as applied to claim 1 above under 35 USC § 102(a)(1), in view of Stehli et al. (US 2014051396 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Cassidy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Cassidy is silent regarding the heat seal layer comprising a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive/bond strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive/bond strength, the second adhesive/bond strength being greater than the first adhesive/bond strength to provide a differential peel of the heat sealing layer.
Stehli teaches a tabbed sealing member for sealing a container, wherein the tabbed sealing member comprises a sealing layer which has a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive strength, the second adhesive strength being greater than the first adhesive strength to provide a differential peel of the sealing layer (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0010, 0049-0051, and Claim 1).
Cassidy and Stehli are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members for sealing a container comprising a sealing layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created first and second adhesive portions having different adhesive strengths in the heat-sealing layer of Cassidy. This would allow for a differential seal of the container that can withstand drop tests while also being easy to open (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, and 0010).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy as applied to claim 1 above under 35 USC § 102(a)(1), in view of Yousif et al. (US 20060124578 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Cassidy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Cassidy is silent regarding at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being at least one selected from the group consisting of transparent, translucent, and a combination thereof.
Yousif teaches a sealing member for sealing to the opening of a container, wherein the sealing member is transparent to allow contents of the container to be visible to a consumer (Yousif, Abstract, Par. 0005, and 0008).
Cassidy and Yousif are analogous art as they both teach sealing members for sealing to the opening of a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the sealing member of Cassidy transparent. This would allow a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy as applied to claim 1 above under 35 USC § 102(a)(1), in view of Thorstensen-Woll (US 20140061196 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Cassidy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Cassidy is silent regarding at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being configured to remain on a container when the tabbed sealing member is removed from the container to form a pour spout.
Thorstensen-Woll teaches a tabbed sealing member comprising upper and lower laminate portions wherein the lower laminate is configured to remain on a container when the tabbed sealing member is removed from the container (Thorstensen-Woll, Abstract, Par. 0010-0012, 0017-0018, 0024-0026, and Fig. 4). Regarding the limitation of forming a pour spout, this results in a portion of the lower laminate portion remaining on container such that it partially covers the opening (Thorstensen-Woll Par. 0024-0026, and Fig. 4), which is the same configuration as the instant pour spout as shown in the instant Figs 8-9. Therefore, Thorstensen-Woll satisfies the claim limitation of forming a pour spout.
Cassidy and Thorstensen-Woll are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members comprising upper and lower laminate portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the lower support laminate of Cassidy to remain on the container when the tabbed sealing member is removed from the container. This would allow for tamper evidence (Thorstensen-Woll, Par. 0001, 0004, and 0024).
Claims 12, 16, 18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy as applied in view of Yousif et al.
Regarding claim 12, Cassidy teaches a laminate for forming a tabbed sealing member, the laminate comprising: an upper laminate portion (106) partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (112) forming a gripping tab when the laminate is formed into a sealing member (Cassidy, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0032-0040, 0062, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion is positioned below the gripping tab and includes a heat seal layer (118) for bonding to the container rim (Cassidy, Par. 0040, 0062, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the upper laminate portion includes an induction heating layer (metal foil) for providing heat to the heat seal layer in the lower laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0004, 0040, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches that the upper laminate portion comprises a release layer (100) that comprises a polymer foam layer, and thus teaches the upper laminate portion comprises a polymer foam layer (Cassidy, Par. 0040-0042, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion comprises a heat seal layer, an optional polymer layer, and a foil (Cassidy, Par. 0040). The polymer layer is optional and the foil may be moved to the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0062). Therefore, Cassidy teaches embodiments wherein the lower laminate consists of only the heat seal layer.
Alternatively, regarding the upper laminate portion comprising a polymer foam layer, Cassidy teaches the tabbed sealing member can comprise a polymer foam layer (109) that can be placed at various locations in the laminate, including in the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0056-0057, and Figs 1-2, 8, and 12).
Cassidy is silent regarding at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being at least one selected from the group consisting of transparent, translucent, and a combination thereof.
Yousif teaches a sealing member for sealing to the opening of a container, wherein the sealing member is transparent to allow contents of the container to be visible to a consumer (Yousif, Abstract, Par. 0005, and 0008).
Cassidy and Yousif are analogous art as they both teach sealing members for sealing to the opening of a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the sealing member of Cassidy transparent. This would allow a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cassidy teaches the lower laminate may comprise a metal foil, but the metal foil can be moved to the upper laminate (Cassidy, Par. 0040, 0062, Fig. 12). Modified Cassidy thus teaches embodiments wherein the metal foil is in the upper laminate and thus the lower laminate is free of metal foil.
Regarding claim 18, modified Cassidy teaches a liner portion positioned above the upper laminate portion, the liner portion being separable from the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0072-0073 and Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 22, Cassidy teaches a tabbed sealing member system comprising: a container having a land area; a multi-layer laminate including an upper laminate portion (106) partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (112) forming a gripping tab, the gripping tap configured for removing the sealing member from the container land area (Cassidy, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0032-0040, and Figs 1-2). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion is positioned below the gripping tab and includes a heat seal layer (118) for bonding to the container rim (Cassidy, Par. 0040 and Figs 1-2). Cassidy teaches the upper laminate portion includes an induction heating layer (metal foil) for providing heat to the heat seal layer in the lower laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0004, 0040, and 0062).
Cassidy is silent regarding at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being at least one selected from the group consisting of transparent, translucent, and a combination thereof.
Yousif teaches a sealing member for sealing to the opening of a container, wherein the sealing member is transparent to allow contents of the container to be visible to a consumer (Yousif, Abstract, Par. 0005, and 0008).
Cassidy and Yousif are analogous art as they both teach sealing members for sealing to the opening of a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the sealing member of Cassidy transparent. This would allow a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005).
Regarding claim 23, modified Cassidy teaches the lower laminate may comprise a metal foil, but the metal foil can be moved to the upper laminate (Cassidy, Par. 0040 and 0062). Modified Cassidy thus teaches embodiments wherein the metal foil in in the upper laminate and thus the lower laminate is free of metal foil.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy in view of Yousif et al. as applied to claim 12 above under 35 USC § 103, further in view of Stehli et al.
Regarding claim 15, Cassidy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 12. Cassidy is silent regarding the heat seal layer comprising a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive/bond strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive/bond strength, the second adhesive/bond strength being greater than the first adhesive/bond strength to provide a differential peel of the heat sealing layer.
Stehli teaches a tabbed sealing member for sealing a container, wherein the tabbed sealing member comprises a sealing layer which has a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive strength, the second adhesive strength being greater than the first adhesive strength to provide a differential peel of the sealing layer (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0010, 0049-0051, and Claim 1).
Cassidy and Stehli are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members for sealing a container comprising a sealing layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created first and second adhesive portions having different adhesive strengths in the heat-sealing layer of Cassidy. This would allow for a differential seal of the container that can withstand drop tests while also being easy to open (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, and 0010).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy in view of Yousif et al. as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of Stehli et al.
Regarding claim 24, modified Cassidy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 22. Modified Cassidy is silent regarding the heat seal layer comprising a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive/bond strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive/bond strength, the second adhesive/bond strength being greater than the first adhesive/bond strength to provide a differential peel of the heat sealing layer.
Stehli teaches a tabbed sealing member for sealing a container, wherein the tabbed sealing member comprises a sealing layer which has a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive strength, the second adhesive strength being greater than the first adhesive strength to provide a differential peel of the sealing layer (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0010, 0049-0051, and Claim 1).
Modified Cassidy and Stehli are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members for sealing a container comprising a sealing layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created first and second adhesive portions having different adhesive strengths in the heat-sealing layer of modified Cassidy. This would allow for a differential seal of the container that can withstand drop tests while also being easy to open (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, and 0010).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy in view of Stehli et al., Thorstensen-Woll, and Yousif et al.
Regarding claim 25, Cassidy teaches a tabbed sealing member having a width for sealing to a rim surrounding a container opening, the sealing member comprising: a multi-layer laminate including an upper laminate portion (106) partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (112) forming a gripping tab, the gripping tap configured for removing the sealing member from the container opening (Cassidy, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0032-0040, 0062, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the lower laminate portion is positioned below the gripping tab and includes a heat seal layer (118) for bonding to the container rim (Cassidy, Par. 0040, Figs 1-2, and 12). Cassidy teaches the upper laminate portion includes an induction heating layer (metal foil, 114) for providing heat to the heat seal layer in the lower laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0004, 0040, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches that the upper laminate portion comprises a release layer (100) that comprises a polymer foam layer, and thus teaches the upper laminate portion comprises a polymer foam layer (Cassidy, Par. 0040-0042, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy teaches the polymer foam layer is a folded layer, that when laid straight out extends the entire width of the tabbed sealing member (Cassidy, Figs 1-3b, 8-12, and 16-18b).
Alternatively, regarding the upper laminate portion comprising a polymer foam layer, Cassidy teaches the tabbed sealing member can comprise a polymer foam layer (109) that can be placed at various locations in the laminate, including in the upper laminate portion, and that extends the entire width of the tabbed sealing member (Cassidy, Par. 0056-0057, and Figs 1-2, 8, and 12).
Cassidy is silent regarding the heat seal layer comprising a plurality of adhesive portions, a first adhesive portion configured to provide a first bond strength to the rim when installed, and a second adhesive portion configured to provide a second bond strength to the rim when installed, the second bond strength being greater than the first bond strength to provide a differential peel of the heat sealing layer.
Stehli teaches a tabbed sealing member for sealing a container, wherein the tabbed sealing member comprises a sealing layer which has a first adhesive portion providing a first adhesive strength and a second adhesive portion having a second adhesive strength, the second adhesive strength being greater than the first adhesive strength to provide a differential peel of the sealing layer (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0010, 0049-0051, and Claim 1).
Cassidy and Stehli are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members for sealing a container comprising a sealing layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created first and second adhesive portions having different bond strengths in the heat-sealing layer of modified Cassidy. This would allow for a differential seal of the container that can withstand drop tests while also being easy to open (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, and 0010).
Modified Cassidy is silent regarding the second adhesive portion remaining adhered to the rim when a user removes the tabbed sealing member to provide at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being on the rim to form a pour spout.
Thorstensen-Woll teaches a tabbed sealing member comprising upper and lower laminate portions wherein the lower laminate is configured to remain on a container when the tabbed sealing member is removed from the container (Thorstensen-Woll, Abstract, Par. 0010-0012, 0017-0018, 0024-0026, and Fig. 4). Regarding the limitation of forming a pour spout, this results in a portion of the lower laminate portion remaining on container such that it partially covers the opening (Thorstensen-Woll Par. 0024-0026, and Fig. 4), which is the same configuration as the instant pour spout as shown in the instant Figs 8-9. Therefore, Thorstensen-Woll satisfies the claim limitation of forming a pour spout.
Modified Cassidy and Thorstensen-Woll are analogous art as they both teach tabbed sealing members comprising upper and lower laminate portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the lower support laminate of modified Cassidy to remain on the container when the tabbed sealing member is removed from the container. This would allow for tamper evidence (Thorstensen-Woll, Par. 0001, 0004, and 0024).
Modified Cassidy is silent regarding at least a portion of the lower laminate portion being at least one selected from the group consisting of transparent, translucent, and a combination thereof.
Yousif teaches a sealing member for sealing to the opening of a container, wherein the sealing member is transparent to allow contents of the container to be visible to a consumer (Yousif, Abstract, Par. 0005, and 0008).
Modified Cassidy and Yousif are analogous art as they both teach sealing members for sealing to the opening of a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the sealing member of modified Cassidy transparent. This would allow a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered.
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant first argues that Cassidy requires the lower laminate comprise the foam insulation layer 109 when the foil layer is positioned in the upper laminate and thus does not teach an upper laminate portion comprising a foam layer and the lower laminate consisting of the heat seal layer, optional barrier layer, and optional tab layer. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Cassidy teaches a lower laminate portion that comprises a heat seal layer, an optional polymer layer, and a foil (Cassidy, Par. 0040). The polymer layer is optional and the foil may be moved to the upper laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0062). Furthermore, Cassidy teaches the tabbed sealing member can comprise a polymer foam layer (109) that can be placed at various locations in the laminate, including in the upper laminate portion or the lower laminate portion (Cassidy, Par. 0056-0057, and Figs 1-2, 8, and 12). Therefore, the broad disclosure of Cassidy teaches an upper laminate portion that comprises a metal foil layer and a polymer foam layer, satisfying the claimed limitation of the upper laminate comprising a polymer foam layer. Further, in this embodiment, the lower laminate portion would comprise only the heat seal layer and thus consist of the heat seal layer, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Furthermore, Cassidy teaches that the upper laminate portion may comprise an induction layer (metal foil) (Cassidy, Par. 0062 and Fig. 12). Cassidy further teaches, in this same embodiment, that the upper laminate portion comprises a release layer (100) (Cassidy, Par. 0040-0042, 0062, and Fig. 12). Cassidy further teaches that the release layers in any of the embodiments may comprise a polymer foam layer (Cassidy, Par. 0040-0042). Cassidy thus teaches an upper laminate portion having both a metal foil layer and a polymer foam layer.
Regarding Applicant pointing to Fig. 12, which shows the upper laminate comprising the metal foil while the lower laminate portion comprises the polymer foam layer, this is a specific embodiment of Cassidy. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), see MPEP 2123. While Cassidy teaches the specific embodiment of Fig. 12, Cassidy does not indicate that the foam layer must be in the lower laminate portion when the metal foil layer is in the upper laminate portion. This specific embodiment thus does not teach away from the broader disclosure of Cassidy which, as stated above, teaches an upper laminate portion having both a metal foil layer and a polymer foam layer.
In view of the above, Cassidy teaches an upper laminate portion comprising a metal foil layer and a polymer foam layer and a lower laminate portion consisting of a heat seal layer and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the release layer of Cassidy would not extend the entire width of the tabbed sealing member. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Cassidy teaches the tab of the sealing member exists in the middle of the tabbed sealing member, and that the release layer, when folded all the way back, would cover the entire width of the tabbed sealing member (Cassidy, Figs 1-3b, 8-12, and 16-18b). Alternatively, the width can be interpreted as the dimension going along the crease of the tab. As the entire laminate, including the release layer, exists over that entire dimension, the release layer of Cassidy would exist over the entire width of the tabbed sealing member. The release layer of Cassidy thus satisfies the claimed limitation of the width of the polymer foam layer.
Furthermore, an alternative grounds of rejection has been made above wherein the layer (109) of Cassidy satisfies the limitation of the claimed polymer foam layer. In this embodiment, the polymer foam layer exists over the entirety of the tabbed sealing member and therefore satisfies the claimed width of the polymer foam layer.
Therefore, in view of the above, Cassidy teaches a polymer foam layer that extends the entire width of the tabbed sealing member and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Yousif is directed towards a non-tabbed structure with a seal that must be broken whereas Cassidy is directed towards a tabbed sealing member where the seal is not torn. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
The combination of Cassidy and Yousif above relies upon Yousif to render obvious creating at least a portion of the lower laminate of the sealing member of Cassidy transparent. Yousif provides motivation for this combination such as allowing a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005). Furthermore, Yousif is analogous to the claimed invention as Yousif is directed towards a sealing member for sealing the opening of a container. In the combination of Cassidy and Yousif as stated above, Cassidy is not being modified to have the tabbed sealing member tear. Therefore, the combination of Cassidy in view of Yousif does not result in a failure of Cassidy and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fourthly, on pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Cassidy requires the polymer foam layer to be in the lower laminate and thus teaches away from the lower laminate being transparent or translucent. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant asserts that the polymeric foam material of Cassidy must be opaque, however, Applicant has not provided any objective evidence as to why the polymeric foam material of Cassidy cannot be made transparent or translucent and must be made opaque. Furthermore, Cassidy does not explicitly define the degree of transparency exhibited by the foam layer, but merely states that “air cells” are present in the foam (Cassidy, Par. 0032). As such, the broad disclosure of Cassidy encompasses embodiments where the foam layer may be translucent or partially opaque, to any degree. Therefore, even if a polymeric foam layer was present in the lower laminate portion, Applicant has not shown evidence that this would result in the lower laminate portion being unable to be made transparent and/or translucent.
Furthermore, as stated above, the broad disclosure of Cassidy teaches embodiments wherein the foam layer resides in the upper laminate portion and thus the lower laminate portion is free of a polymer foam layer. Furthermore, the rejection regarding transparency above relies upon Yousif to render obvious creating the lower laminate portion to be transparent. Yousif provides motivation to do so such as allow a consumer to view the contents of the container (Yousif, Par. 0005). This would further provide motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to include any opaque layers in the upper laminate portion so that the upper laminate portion and gripping tab could be lifted up to view the contents of the container.
Therefore, in view of the above, Cassidy in view of Yousef render obvious embodiments where the lower laminate portion is transparent and/or translucent and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fifthly, on pages 11-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that, for claim 25, modifying Cassidy to have a differential peel of the heat seal layer such that a portion of the adhesive remains on the rim when a user removes the tabbed sealing member would render Cassidy unsuitable for its intended purpose. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Cassidy teaches a tabbed sealing member that has additional support to provide for a more robust structure such that the tab does not tear from the rest of the structure (Cassidy, Par. 0035-0036). Nowhere in Cassidy does it indicate that the heat seal layer cannot comprise adhesive portions with a differential peel such that a portion of the adhesive remains on the rim when the sealing member is removed. Furthermore, both Stelhi and Thorstensen-Woll provide motivation for the combination such as allowing for a differential seal of the container that can withstand drop tests while also being easy to open (Stehli, Abstract, Par. 0008, and 0010) and allowing for tamper evidence (Thorstensen-Woll, Par. 0001, 0004, and 0024). Therefore, Cassidy does not teach away from the combination as stated above and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782