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 .
The amendment filed 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 6-8, 10-12, 15, 17, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,602,309 (Vizulis et al. hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. RE42,910 E (Pearce hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-4, Vizulis et al. discloses: A packaging container comprising: a closure (“caps” column 2, lines 55-61); a body (13) defining a volume, the body including a neck extending from an opening of the body (resulting in rim 24), and a base (not shown, though typical of “sports bottles”); a liner (10) engageable with the neck to form a hermetic seal (column 2, lines 18-22), the liner having a plurality of layers including at least a heat seal layer (16) engageable with the neck, a foil layer (14) and a backing layer (12) engageable with the closure, the liner having only one opening extending through each of the layers (see fig. 3), the opening being unobstructed (note that in consideration of the term “unobstructed”, reference is made to Applicant’s specification wherein the term is not found and/or defined, while the opening/vent is defined in as being “configured for passage of a pressurized gas from an interior volume” at paragraph 0034, and that lid 32 ultimately can or cannot be considered to “obstruct” the opening/vent 44 depending upon the interpretation, and thereby the membrane 18 of Vizulis et al. is not interpreted obstruct the flow of pressurized gas through the liner utilizing the broadest reasonably interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification, further see Vizulis et al. column 3, lines 54-61: “The pathway 22 allows gas to travel to or from the interior of the container 13. The pathway 22 functions in the following manner. When the gas reaches the fluid impermeable layer 12 the gas travels to the pathway 22. The gas then travels through the pathway 22 to the exterior of the container 13” thereby providing an unobstructed pathway for gases from the container interior to the exterior).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vizulis et al. fails to disclose the closure including a projection engageable with the backing layer, the projection including a plurality of ridges arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one gap extending through the ridges.
However, with reference to Fig. 4, Pearce discloses a closure including a projection, the projection including a plurality of ridges (56) arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one gap (58) extending through the ridges.
PNG
media_image2.png
377
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the closure of Vizulis et al. to have included ridges and gaps as taught by Pearce for the purposes of facilitating increased ventilation from the interior of the container to the exterior through the closure (Pearce, column 3, lines 23-48).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the opening (20) is centrally disposed relative to the liner (i.e. in the central region of the liner as opposed to a lateral edge/surface of the liner).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the foil layer (14) is disposed between the heat seal layer (16) and the backing layer (12).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the ridges are each disposed in a circumferential orientation about an inner wall surface of the closure (see figs. 3A and 4 of Pearce).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the gap includes a plurality of spaced apart gaps (58) each extending through each of the ridges (see Fig. 4 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the ridges are each disposed in a circumferential orientation about an inner wall surface of the closure and the at least one gap is 10% or less of the circumference of one of the ridges (see Fig. 4, a gap 58 is shown clearly less than 10% of the circumference of one of the ridges).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses A packaging container comprising: a closure; a body defining a volume, the body including a neck extending from an opening of the body, and a base; a liner engageable with the neck to form a hermetic seal, the liner having a plurality of layers including a heat seal layer engageable with the neck, a backing layer engageable with the closure and a foil layer disposed therebetween, the liner defining at least one only a single vent (20) extending through each of the layers, the vent being unobstructed (As in re claim 1 above); and the closure including a seal (Pearce 56) engageable with the backing layer (in the above combination), the seal including a plurality of ridges arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one relief (gap 58) extending through the ridges.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “blow molded” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e. the container, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. blow molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the ridges are each disposed in a circumferential orientation about an inner wall surface of the closure (as in re claim 8 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the ridges are each disposed in a circumferential orientation about an inner wall surface of the closure and the at least one vent is 10% or less of the circumference of one of the ridges (as in re claim 11 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses: A packaging container comprising: a closure; a body defining a volume, the body including a base, and a neck extending from an opening of the body; a liner engageable with the neck to form a hermetic seal, the liner consisting of a heat seal layer engageable with the neck, a foil layer, a backing layer engageable with the closure and only one vent (20) extending through each of the layers, the vent being unobstructed (as in re claim 1 above); and the closure comprising a seal engageable with the liner, the seal including a plurality of ridges (56) arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one gap (58) extending through the ridges.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “blow molded” has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e. the container, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. blow molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 22, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the ridges include a first ridge (inner 56) and a second ridge (outer 56), the second ridge having a radius of curvature that is greater than a radius of curvature of the first ridge (See Fig. 4 above).
In re claim 23, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of ridges includes two ridges arranged in two circles (see Fig. 4 above).
In re claim 24, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the two circles have different circumferences (see fig. 4 above).
In re claim 25, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the liner engages the neck to form the hermetic seal (as in re claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2002/0066714 (Mainquist et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 2 and 13, with reference to Figs. 1-4, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention except wherein the opening includes a conical shaped cavity extending through the plurality of layers to form a vent in communication with the volume.
However, with reference to Fig. 6C, Mainquist et al. discloses a gas vent for a bottle, the vent (144) having a shape such as a conical shape (i.e. tapering upwards to a smaller diameter).
PNG
media_image3.png
268
389
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have changed the shape of the vent/opening of Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce to another shape such as a conical shape, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0033, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, and instead provides many examples of acceptable shapes all expected to operate essentially equally well.
In re claims 5 and 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce discloses the claimed invention including wherein the vent includes a first portion that extends through the heat seal layer and a second portion that extends through the backing layer (see Fig. 3 above), the first portion having a width that is greater than a width of the second portion (due to the modified conical shape in re claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,361,531 (Black hereinafter).
In re claim 18, with reference to Figs. 1-4, Vizulis et al. discloses: A method for manufacturing a packaging container, the method comprising the steps of: forming an article having a selected configuration and including a body defining a volume and a neck, attaching a liner to the neck to form a hermetic seal, the liner consisting of a heat seal layer engageable with the neck, a foil layer, a backing layer engageable with a closure and a single opening extending through each of the layers, the opening being unobstructed; and attaching the closure to the neck (as in re claim 1 above).
Vizulis et al. fails to disclose wherein the step of blow molding the container, forming a dome; and trimming the article to remove the dome to form a finished container.
However, with reference to Fig. 5, Black teaches a known method of forming an article which includes blow molding the article (20), forming a dome (23), and trimming the dome (columns 5-6, lines 58-6).
PNG
media_image4.png
226
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the known method steps of blow molding the article, forming the dome, and trimming the dome as taught by Black to the formation of the bottle of Vizulis et al., as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Applicant has not disclosed that blow molding/trimming provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with another suitable article forming method such as injection molding, as long as the resulting container includes the structural features to engage the closure/liner.
Vizulis et al. in view of Black fails to disclose the closure including a projection engageable with the backing layer, the projection including a plurality of ridges arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one gap extending through the ridges.
However, with reference to Fig. 4, Pearce discloses a closure including a projection, the projection including a plurality of ridges (56) arranged in concentric circles, the closure defining at least one gap (58) extending through the ridges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the closure of Vizulis et al. in view of Black to have included ridges and gaps as taught by Pearce for the purposes of facilitating increased ventilation from the interior of the container to the exterior through the closure (Pearce, column 3, lines 23-48).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Vizulis et al. in view of Pearce and Black discloses the claimed invention including wherein the foil layer is disposed between the heat seal layer and the backing layer (as in re claim 7 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the Remarks that Vizulis teaches away from an unobstructed opening since Vizulis utilizes a vent patch which covers the opening. However, Vizulis teaches that the vent patch is permeable to gases (column 3, lines 29-31: “Gasses pass through a gas permeable membrane 18 which covers the vent hole 20”, and column 3, lines 36-61: “gas permeable matrix for venting gas to or from the interior of the container 13”, “Venting of gasses occurs throughout the vent hole 20”, “The hydrophobic membrane is positioned such that it covers the vent hole 20, thereby allowing venting to occur directly through the hydrophobic membrane 18 to the opening”, and “In the preferred embodiment, the fluid impermeable layer 12 contains a pathway 22. The pathway 22 allows gas to travel to or from the interior of the container 13. The pathway 22 functions in the following manner. When the gas reaches the fluid impermeable layer 12 the gas travels to the pathway 22. The gas then travels through the pathway 22 to the exterior of the container 13, over the rim 24 to the outside of the container or it can occur in the reverse direction”), thereby, there is an unobstructed pathway from the container interior to the exterior of Vizulis et al. in the same manner as Applicant’s claimed invention regarding the function of venting of gas through the opening/vent.
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights