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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffer (US 20190135484 A1) (previously cited) in view of Sato et al. (JP 201964652 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations) (newly cited) and Triquet et al. (US 20090078671 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, Huffer teaches a seal for use with a container top that seals a foodstuff container wherein the seal comprises a lid which comprises a membrane seal material intended to be in contact with a mouth of the container which may be sealed via adhering to the container (Huffer, Abstract, Par. 0001-0003, 0016-0019, 0022-0025, 0043, and Fig. 1). Huffer teaches the membrane seal material has barrier properties and may be formed of any suitable material including a plastic material (Huffer, Par. 0023-0024, and 0043). Huffer teaches the seal may comprise a metal film layer but states that other materials, such as PET, may be used as the film layer (Huffer, Par. 0022). Huffer does not state that any other metal layers are required. Therefore, Huffer teaches embodiments wherein the seal is free of a metal layer. Huffer teaches that the seal material can be used for a variety of containers and the containers may include a cap placed over the seal (Huffer, Par. 0025, 0049, and Fig. 1).
Huffer is silent regarding the lid comprising a casein- and/or caseinate-based film.
Saito teaches a lid for a container comprising a casein- or caseinate-based sealing film intended to be in contact with and seal to a mouth of the container (Saito, Par. 0005-0006, 0012-0014, 0016, and 0018). Saito teaches the film comprises a casein or a caseinate (Saito, Par. 0008 and 0012).
Huffer and Saito are analogous art as they both teach lid for containers comprising a sealing film intended to be in contact with a mouth of the 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 used the sealing film of Saito as the sealing film of Huffer. This would allow for a film having good oxygen barrier properties and good sealing properties (Saito, Par. 0013-0015).
Triquet teaches a two-part seal comprising a substrate (support, 2) affixed to a lid (membrane seal, 3) by means of a temporary adhesive, characterized in that the lid comprises a sealable film intended to be in contact with a mouth of a container (Triquet, Abstract, Par. 0006-0009, 0062-0070, and Figs 1, 4, and 6). Triquet teaches a cap placed over the seal (Triquet, Abstract). Triquet teaches the substrate is temporarily joined to the lid via a temporary adhesive and thus teaches that the substrate separates from the lid when the container top is removed from the container allowing the lid to remain on the container (Triquet, Par. 0037).
Modified Huffer and Triquet are analogous art as they both teach seals for a container that includes a cap placed over the seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the seal of modified Huffer to be a two-part seal with a substrate affixed to the lid of modified Huffer via a temporary adhesive as taught by Triquet. This would allow for absorbed tolerances between the cap and the container and an ability to withstand some compression with a memory effect (Triquet, Par. 0009).
Regarding claims 24-26, modified Huffer teaches the lid further comprises a reinforcing film (film layer) applied to the face of the casein- and/or caseinate-based film opposite that facing the mouth of the container, wherein the reinforcing film comprises a polyester (Huffer, Par. 0019-0022).
Regarding claim 27, modified Huffer teaches the lid further comprises a tab arranged as an extension of the reinforcing film and/or the casein- and/or caseinate-based film (Huffer, Abstract, and Par. 0022).
Regarding claim 28, modified Huffer teaches the casein- and/or caseinate-based film comprises plasticizers (glycerol/glycerin or sorbitol) and the casein/caseinate (Saito, Par. 0012 and 0020). Modified Huffer teaches the film may comprise only the casein or caseinate based material and the plasticizer (glycerin), and the amount of plasticizer is 20 to 40 g per 100 g of the casein or caseinate based material (Saito, Par. 0023). This results in an amount of casein or caseinate of 71 to 83 wt.% and an amount of plasticizer of 17 to 29 wt.%. These ranges lie within the claimed ranges of from 40 to 90% and from 5 to 50% respectively and therefore satisfy the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 29, modified Huffer teaches that the plasticizer is water, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, or ethylene glycol (Huffer, Par. 0028).
Regarding claim 30, modified Huffer teaches the substrate is made of a compressible material with recovery memory such as expanded polyethylene or expanded polypropylene (Triquet, Par. 0021).
Claims 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffer in view of Sato et al.
Regarding claim 38, Huffer teaches a lid for sealing a container with a closure by cap, the lid comprising a membrane seal material intended to be in contact with a mouth of the container which may be sealed via adhering to the container (Huffer, Abstract, Par. 0001-0003, 0016-0019, 0022-0025, 0043, 0049, and Fig. 1). Huffer teaches the membrane seal material has barrier properties and may be formed of any suitable material including a plastic material (Huffer, Par. 0023-0024, and 0043).
Huffer is silent regarding the lid comprising a casein- and/or caseinate-based film which comprises at least one caseinate and/or at least one casein, the weight of which represents from 60 to 70% by weight of the film and at least one plasticizer, the weight of which represents from 10 to 40% by weight of the film.
Saito teaches a lid for a container comprising a casein- or caseinate-based sealing film intended to be in contact with and seal to a mouth of the container (Saito, Par. 0005-0006, 0012-0014, 0016, and 0018). Saito teaches the film comprises a casein or a caseinate (Saito, Par. 0008 and 0012). Saito teaches the film comprises plasticizers (glycerol/glycerin or sorbitol) (Saito, Par. 0012 and 0020). Saito teaches the film may comprise only the casein or caseinate based material and the plasticizer (glycerin), and the amount of plasticizer is approximately 20 to 40 g per 100 g of the casein or caseinate based material (Saito, Par. 0023). This results in an amount of casein or caseinate of approximately 71 to 83 wt.% and an amount of plasticizer of approximately 17 to 29 wt.%. The amount of plasticizer lies within the claimed range of 10-40% and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Furthermore, the range of approximately 71 to 83 wt.% would include values slightly below the 71 wt.%, such as 70 wt.%, which lies within the claimed range. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05, I. Therefore, Saito’s amount of casein or caseinate establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range of 60 to 70 wt.%, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Huffer and Saito are analogous art as they both teach lid for containers comprising a sealing film intended to be in contact with a mouth of the 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 used the sealing film of Saito as the sealing film of Huffer. This would allow for a film having good oxygen barrier properties and good sealing properties (Saito, Par. 0013-0015).
Regarding claims 39-41, modified Huffer teaches the lid further comprises a reinforcing film (film layer) applied to the face of the casein- and/or caseinate-based film opposite that facing the mouth of the container, wherein the reinforcing film comprises a polyester (Huffer, Par. 0019-0022).
Regarding claim 42, modified Huffer teaches that the plasticizer is water, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, or ethylene glycol (Huffer, Par. 0028).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 35-37 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record does not teach or render obvious each and every element of the instant claim 31.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be modified Huffer as stated above.
The differences between the closest prior art of record and the instant claim 31 are described below.
Modified Huffer is silent regarding the casein- and/or caseinate-based film being sealed on the container without requiring heat.
The closest prior art of record thus does not teach each and every limitation of the instant claim 31. Therefore, claims 31, and all claims dependent thereof, contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 112 set forth in the previous office action.
The rejection under 35 USC § 112 set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejections over prior art, on pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Triquet requires a metal layer and thus does not teach the instant claim 1. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Note that while Triquet does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Triquet is used as a secondary reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Triquet teaches that it is well known and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to form a seal to be a two-part seal with a substrate affixed to the lid of modified Huffer via a temporary adhesive as taught by Triquet. Only the substrate (support) and temporary adhesive of Triquet are utilized in the rejection above. Neither the substrate or temporary adhesive of Triquet must comprise a metal layer. Furthermore, Huffer does not state that a metal layer is required. Therefore, the embodiment of modified Huffer, including the substrate and temporary adhesive of Triquet, does not comprise a metal layer and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 7-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Prochazka does not teach sealing with casein. This is found moot.
The grounds of rejection have been updated in view of the present claim amendments. The grounds of rejection no longer rely upon previously cited Prochazka. Instead, the new grounds of rejection rely upon newly cited Saito is relied upon to render obvious the claimed casein/caseinate-based film being sealed.
To note, claims 31 and 35-36 have been indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
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