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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) because lead lines must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature. MPEP 608.02 V. See at least the lead lines associated with reference character 305a fig. 12D, 330a fig. 12C, 111 fig. 13B which do not extend to the feature.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “330a” has been used to designate different structures between figures 12C and 11A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “300” has been used to designate both container and welding device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The description is objected to because all section lines used are not referred to in the brief description of drawings. MPEP 608.01(f).
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “300” has been used to designate welding device and container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 14, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210198014) further in view of Aoun (US 20190276198) and Farrell (US 3158491).
Claim 1: Zhu discloses a top wall 2 (membrane) for use with a container, the top wall 2 (membrane) comprises: an outer layer 20 comprising a peripheral area, wherein the peripheral area is defined by a first perimeter of the outer layer 20, and a second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) formed inward of the first perimeter, wherein the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) extends to a crease line 29 to define a flap; and an inner layer 10 comprising a peripheral zone, wherein the peripheral zone is defined by a second perimeter of the inner layer 10, wherein a central portion exists, wherein the central portion comprises a first perforation line 11 which forms a sip hole 50 due to connection 13; and a connection area 18’ (first seal area), wherein at least a portion of the peripheral zone of the inner layer 10 is adhered to at least a portion of the peripheral area of the outer layer 20 in the connection area 18’ (first seal area) (see P. 0101 and fig. 2-3, 22, and 11-12).
Zhu does not disclose the peripheral zone being defined by a second perimeter of the second layer and a second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter, the second line of weakness defining a central portion of the inner layer, the central portion of the inner layer comprising one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness, or the central portion of the inner layer being removable by fracturing the second line of weakness.
Farrell teaches a cover having a center panel 52 surrounded by cut lines 41 and a tear strip 51 extending between cut lines 41 and angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), where removal of the center panel 52 forms an opening and removal of the tear strip 51 forms a larger opening (see fig. 4, 5, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the flap and surrounding the first perforation line 11, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow when desired.
Aoun discloses a package 1 having a top layer 8 and a bottom layer 6 with a dispensing hole 7 (opening) (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the top wall 2 (membrane) to have replaced the first perforation line 11 and connection 13 with a like sized dispensing hole 7 (opening), as taught by Aoun, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
The combination discloses the peripheral zone being defined by the second perimeter of the inner layer 10 and the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) formed inward of the second perimeter, the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) defining the central portion on the inner layer 10, the central portion of the inner layer 10 comprising the dispensing hole 7 (opening) within the central portion inward of the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), and the central portion of the inner layer 10 being removable by fracturing the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness).
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the outer layer 20 and the inner layer 10 are formed from one of paper or cardboard (see P. 0029).
Claim 4: The combination discloses a crease line 29 (hinge) formed within the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) (see fig. 12).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the connection area 18’ (seal area) forms a hermetic seal between the outer layer 20 and the inner layer 10 (see fig. 22).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the connection area 18’ (first seal area) is disposed between the second perimeter of the inner layer 10 and the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) (see fig. 12 and 22).
Claim 14: The combination discloses wherein the flap of the outer layer 20 further comprises a pull tab adjacent to grip recess 24 (see fig. 12).
Claim 29: Zhu discloses a package 9 comprising: a sidewall 30 (body) defining a top end; and a top wall 2 (membrane) adhered to an inner surface of the sidewall 30 (body) [see P. 0074, examiner notes that the connection meets the BRI of adhered of to hold fast or stick by or as if by gluing, suction, grasping, or fusing], wherein the top wall 2 (membrane) comprises: an outer layer 20 comprising a peripheral area, wherein the peripheral area is defined by a first perimeter of the outer layer 20, and a second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) formed inward of the first perimeter, wherein the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) extends to a crease line 29 to define a flap; and an inner layer 10 comprising a peripheral zone, wherein the peripheral zone is partially defined by a second perimeter of the inner layer 10, wherein a central portion exists, wherein the central portion comprises a first perforation line 11 which forms a sip hole 50 due to connection 13; and a connection area 18’ (first seal area), wherein at least a portion of the peripheral zone of the inner layer 10 is adhered to at least a portion of the peripheral area of the outer layer 20 in the connection area 18’ (first seal area) (see P. 0101 and fig. 2-3, 22, and 11-12).
Zhu does not disclose the peripheral zone being defined by a second perimeter of the second layer and a second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter, the second line of weakness defining a central portion of the inner layer, the central portion of the inner layer comprising one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness, or the central portion of the inner layer being removable by fracturing the second line of weakness.
Farrell teaches a cover having a center panel 52 surrounded by cut lines 41 and a tear strip 51 extending between cut lines 41 and angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), where removal of the center panel 52 forms an opening and removal of the tear strip 51 forms a larger opening (see fig. 4, 5, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the flap and surrounding the first perforation line 11, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow when desired.
Aoun discloses a package 1 having a top layer 8 and a bottom layer 6 with a dispensing hole 7 (opening) (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the top wall 2 (membrane) to have replaced the first perforation line 11 and connection 13 with a like sized dispensing hole 7 (opening), as taught by Aoun, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
The combination discloses the peripheral zone being defined by the second perimeter of the inner layer 10 and the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) formed inward of the second perimeter, the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) defining the central portion on the inner layer 10, the central portion of the inner layer 10 comprising the dispensing hole 7 (opening) within the central portion inward of the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), and the central portion of the inner layer 10 being removable by fracturing the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210198014), Aoun (US 20190276198), and Farrell (US 3158491) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Elias (US 4280653).
Claim 15: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the pull tab comprises a portion of the flap which is folded and configured to extend out of the plane of the first layer.
Holka teaches a patch top member 30 having a pull tab 32 that is folded back onto the remainder of the patch top member such that the pull tab 32 extends out of the plane of the remainder of the patch top member 30 (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the gripping and tearing aid 22 (pull tab) to be folded back onto the closure flap 14 (flap), as taught by Holka, in order to be more accessible and recognizable by a user.
Claim(s) 20-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210198014) further in view of Aoun (US 20190276198), Sioland (US 20220388710), and Farrell (US 3158491).
Claim 20: Zhu discloses a package 9 comprising: a sidewall 30 (body) defining a top end and an internal wall; and a top wall 2 (membrane) adhered to the sidewall 30 (body) [see P. 0074, examiner notes that the connection meets the BRI of adhered of to hold fast or stick by or as if by gluing, suction, grasping, or fusing], wherein the top wall 2 (membrane) comprises: an outer layer 20 comprising a peripheral area, wherein the peripheral area is defined by a first perimeter of the outer layer 20, and a second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) formed inward of the first perimeter, wherein the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) extends to a crease line 29 to define a flap; and an inner layer 10 comprising a peripheral zone, wherein the peripheral zone is partially defined by a second perimeter of the inner layer 10, wherein a central portion exists, wherein the central portion comprises a first perforation line 11 which forms a sip hole 50 due to connection 13; and a connection area 18’ (first seal area), wherein at least a portion of the peripheral zone of the inner layer 10 is adhered to at least a portion of the peripheral area of the outer layer 20 in the connection area 18’ (first seal area) (see P. 0101 and fig. 2-3, 22, and 11-12).
Zhu does not disclose a lid configured to be received by the top end of the body, the peripheral zone being defined by a second perimeter of the second layer and a second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter, the second line of weakness defining a central portion of the inner layer, the central portion of the inner layer comprising one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness, or the central portion of the inner layer being removable by fracturing the second line of weakness.
Sioland teaches a lid 116 connected to upper reinforcing rim 115 by means of a hinge 125, wherein the lid 116 is receivable by the upper reinforcing rim 115 (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body to have a lid 116 connected to the sidewall 30 (body) by hinge 125 and receivable by the sidewall 30 (body), as taught by Sioland, in order to provide a means for closing the package 9 after opening of the top wall 2 (membrane).
Farrell teaches a cover having a center panel 52 surrounded by cut lines 41 and a tear strip 51 extending between cut lines 41 and angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), where removal of the center panel 52 forms an opening and removal of the tear strip 51 forms a larger opening (see fig. 4, 5, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the flap and surrounding the first perforation line 11, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow when desired.
Aoun discloses a package 1 having a top layer 8 and a bottom layer 6 with a dispensing hole 7 (opening) (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the top wall 2 (membrane) to have replaced the first perforation line 11 and connection 13 with a like sized dispensing hole 7 (opening), as taught by Aoun, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
The combination discloses the peripheral zone being defined by the second perimeter of the inner layer 10 and the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) formed inward of the second perimeter, the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) defining the central portion on the inner layer 10, the central portion of the inner layer 10 comprising the dispensing hole 7 (opening) within the central portion inward of the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), and the central portion of the inner layer 10 being removable by fracturing the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness).
Claim 21: The combination discloses wherein at least the outer layer 20 of the top wall 2 (membrane) is recessed within the internal wall (see fig. 2).
Claim 22: The combination discloses wherein the sidewall 30 is made from double side coated paper resulting in the internal wall further comprises a coating (see P. 0085).
Claim 23: The combination discloses wherein the connection area 18’ (first seal area) forms a hermetic seal between the outer layer 20 and the inner layer 10 (second layer) (see fig. 22).
Claim 24: The combination discloses wherein the top wall 2 (membrane) is adhered to the internal wall of the sidewall 30 (body) (see fig. 2 and P. 0074, examiner notes that the connection meets the BRI of adhered of to hold fast or stick by or as if by gluing, suction, grasping, or fusing).
Claim 26: The combination discloses wherein the lid 116 is hingedly attached to the sidewall 30 (body) (see fig. 5 ‘710).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierron (EP 1449789) further in view of Aoun (US 20190276198) and Farrell (US 3158491).
Claim 1: Pierron discloses a packaging film 10 (membrane) for use with a container, the packaging film 10 (membrane) comprising: an outer film 28 (outer layer) comprising a peripheral area, wherein the peripheral area is defined by a first perimeter of the outer film 28 (outer layer), and a second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) formed inward of the first perimeter, wherein the second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) defines a closure flap 14 (flap); and an inner film 26 (inner layer) comprising a peripheral zone, wherein the peripheral zone is defined by a second perimeter of the inner film 26 (inner layer), wherein a central portion exists, wherein the central portion comprises a first weakening line 50 which forms an opening 16 due to permanent adhesive 30; and a first seal area, wherein at least a portion of the peripheral zone of the inner film 26 (inner layer) is adhered to at least a portion of the peripheral area of the outer film 28 (outer layer) in the first seal area (see annotated fig. 14 below and fig. 1-2).
Pierron does not disclose the peripheral zone being defined by a second perimeter of the second layer and a second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter, the second line of weakness defining a central portion of the inner layer, the central portion of the inner layer comprising one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness, or the central portion of the inner layer being removable by fracturing the second line of weakness.
Farrell teaches a cover having a center panel 52 surrounded by cut lines 41 and a tear strip 51 extending between cut lines 41 and angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), where removal of the center panel 52 forms an opening and removal of the tear strip 51 forms a larger opening (see fig. 4, 5, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the closure flap 14 (flap) and surrounding the first weakening line 50, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow and/or access when desired.
Aoun discloses a package 1 having a top layer 8 and a bottom layer 6 with a dispensing hole 7 (opening) (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the packaging film 10 (membrane) to have replaced the first weakening line 50 and permanent adhesive 30 within the first weakening line 50 with a like sized dispensing hole 7 (opening), as taught by Aoun, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
The combination discloses the peripheral zone being defined by the second perimeter of the inner film 26 (inner layer) and the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) formed inward of the second perimeter, the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) defining the central portion on the inner film 26 (inner layer), the central portion of the inner film 26 (inner layer) comprising the dispensing hole 7 (opening) within the central portion inward of the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), and the central portion of the inner film 26 (inner layer) being removable by fracturing the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the outer film 28 defines a first shape and the inner film 26 defines a second shape, wherein the first shape and the second shape are the same (see fig. 12-14).
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the outer film 28 and the inner film 26 are formed from paper (see disclosure).
Claim 4: The combination discloses a hinge formed within the second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) (see fig. 1, 12, and 14).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the seal area forms a hermetic seal between the outer film 28 and the inner film 26 (see fig. 14).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area is disposed between the second perimeter of the inner film 26 and the second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) (see annotated fig. 14 above).
Claim 8: The combination discloses a strip 58 (second seal area), wherein the strip 58 (second seal area) covers the area of the inner film 26 (inner layer) located within the second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) and therefore is disposed between the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) of the inner film 26 (inner layer) and the second weakening line 54 (first line of weakness) of the outer film 28 (outer layer) (see fig. 14 and 12).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the strip 58 (second seal area) comprises a self-adhesive 20 (peelable adhesive) (see fig. 14, 15, and 1).
Claim 10: The combination discloses wherein the strip 58 (second seal area) comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive 20 (pressure sensitive adhesive).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area comprises a permanent adhesive 30 (see annotated fig. 14 above).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area and the strip 58 (second seal area) are formed with different adhesives as the first seal area is formed with a permanent adhesive 30 based on polyurethane and the strip 58 (second seal area) is formed with a pressure-sensitive adhesive 20 based on polyacrylate.
Claim 14: The combination discloses wherein the closure flap 14 (flap) of the outer film 28 (outer layer) further comprises a gripping and tearing aid 22 (pull tab) (see fig. 1).
Claim 16: The combination discloses wherein the closure flap 14 (flap) is resealable to the peripheral zone via self-adhesive 20 (see annotated fig. 14 above).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierron (EP 1449789), Aoun (US 20190276198), and Farrell (US 3158491).as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Elias (US 4280653).
Claim 15: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the pull tab comprises a portion of the flap which is folded and configured to extend out of the plane of the outer layer.
Holka teaches a patch top member 30 having a pull tab 32 that is folded back onto the remainder of the patch top member such that the pull tab 32 extends out of the plane of the remainder of the patch top member 30 (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the gripping and tearing aid 22 (pull tab) to be folded back onto the closure flap 14 (flap), as taught by Holka, in order to be more accessible and recognizable by a user.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe (KR 101960695) further in view of 河合 広文 (JP 4235739) and Farrell (US 3158491).
Claim 1: Choe discloses a lid 2 (membrane) for use with a container, the lid 2 (membrane) comprising: an upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer) comprising a peripheral area, wherein the peripheral area is defined by a first perimeter of the upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer), and a half cut line formed on the outer contour 4a (first line of weakness) formed inward of the first perimeter, wherein the half cut line formed on the outer contour 4a (first line of weakness) defines a lid 4 (flap); and a lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) comprising a peripheral zone, wherein the peripheral zone is defined by a second perimeter of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer), wherein a central portion exists, wherein the central portion comprises half-cut lines formed along outlines 7a which form discharge holes 7 (openings) due to adhesive 8; and a first seal area, wherein at least a portion of the peripheral zone of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) is adhered to at least a portion of the peripheral area of the upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer) in the first seal area (see fig. 1, 2, 4, 5a, and annotated partial fig. 1 below).
Choe does not disclose the peripheral zone being defined by a second perimeter of the second layer and a second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter, the second line of weakness defining a central portion of the inner layer, the central portion of the inner layer comprising one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness, or the central portion of the inner layer being removable by fracturing the second line of weakness.
Farrell teaches a cover having a center panel 52 surrounded by cut lines 41 and a tear strip 51 extending between cut lines 41 and angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), where removal of the center panel 52 forms an opening and removal of the tear strip 51 forms a larger opening (see fig. 4, 5, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the lid 4 (flap) and surrounding all of the outlines 7a, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow and/or access when desired.
河合 広文 teaches a food container lid 1 having a composite sheet 10 having holes 12 and a surface sheet 20 covering the composite sheet 10 and having an easy release layer 30 covering the holes 12 (see fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the lid 2 (membrane) to have replaced the half-cut lines formed along outlines 7a with like sized holes 12 (openings) covered and sealed with the release coating 9, as taught by 河合 広文, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
The combination discloses the peripheral zone being defined by the second perimeter of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) and the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) formed inward of the second perimeter, the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) defining the central portion on the inner film 26 (inner layer), the central portion of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) comprising the dispensing holes 12 (openings) within the central portion inward of the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness), and the central portion of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) being removable by fracturing the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness).
PNG
media_image2.png
305
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer) defines a first shape and the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) defines a second shape, wherein the first shape and the second shape are the same (see fig. 1 and 5a).
Claim 5: The combination discloses further comprising a hinge formed within the outer contour 4a (first line of weakness) (see fig. 1 and 2).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area is disposed between the second perimeter of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) and the half cut line formed on the outer contour 4a (first line of weakness) (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 8: The combination discloses a second seal area, wherein the second seal area covers the area of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (inner layer) below lid 4 (flap) and therefore is disposed between the angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) of the lower layer fabric 2-2 (lower layer) and the half cut line formed on the outer contour 4a (first line of weakness) of the upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer) (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the second seal area comprises a release coating 9 (peelable adhesive) (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area comprises a permanent adhesive 8 (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 12: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area and the second seal area are formed with the same type of adhesive 8 (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the first seal area and the second seal area are formed with different adhesives as the first seal area is formed with adhesive 8 and the second seal area is formed with a release coating 9 having a weak adhesive force (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and fig. 5a).
Claim 14: The combination discloses wherein the lid 4 (flap) of the upper-layer fabric 2-1 (outer layer) further comprises a tab portion 5 (pull tab) (see fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 4-6 and 8-9 of office action dated 1 July 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure dated 1 December 2025.
The specification objections in paragraphs 10-11 and 13-16 of office action dated 1 July 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure dated 1 December 2025.
Applicant's arguments dated 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that lead lines associated with reference character 305a of figure 12D have been corrected to extend properly to the designated feature, the Examiner replies that this lead line is directed to an upper surface of the lid. This objection can be overcome by removing reference character 305a from figure 12D.
In response to applicant’s argument that lead lines associated with reference character 111 have been corrected to extend properly to the first perimeter feature, the Examiner replies that it appears that this lead line is directed to the first line of weakness and not the first perimeter.
In response to applicant’s argument that lead lines associated with reference character 330a of figure 12C have been corrected to extend properly to the inner surface, the Examiner replies that the lead line is not directed to the inner surface of the rim that the peripheral area 115 of the first layer 110 extends along as disclosed.
In response to applicant’s argument that the rejections each fail because the Examiner explicitly admits that none of the primary references disclose the core claimed structure, that these admissions are fatal because the missing elements define the fundamental structure of the claimed invention, that in a proper obviousness analysis the primary reference should disclose the majority of the claimed subject matter while citing to MPEP 2143.01, that when a primary reference lacks core structural elements it cannot serve as a foundation for an obviousness rejection, that the Examiners approach of using Zhu, Pierron, or Chloe as primary references fails because each primary reference lacks the essential structures, that when an examiner admits the primary reference lacks essential claim elements (particularly core structural elements that define the claimed invention) no amount of secondary references can cure these deficiencies, that the missing elements here are fatal because they represent the fundamental inventive concept itself not mere details that can be supplied by obvious modifications, and that under established precedent an obvious rejection cannot succeed when primary references lack explicit claim limitations, the Examiner responds that these arguments are factually incorrect. Applicant cites to no “established precedent” to support their arguments. Cited MPEP 2143.01 does not support these arguments in any fashion. There is no requirement that a primary reference must disclose the majority of the claimed subject matter, an alleged “core claimed structure”, alleged “essential structures”, alleged “essential claim elements”, alleged “fundamental structure of the claimed invention”, alleged “core structural elements”, alleged “fundamental inventive concept”, or all “explicit claim limitations”. Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so as long as the proposed modification does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and does not change the principle of operation of the reference. MPEP 2143.01.
In response to applicant’s argument that the missing elements represent a specific structural and functional relationship that cannot be assembled piecemeal from unrelated references teaching different structures for different purposes, the Examiner responds that it is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See also id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). MPEP 2144 IV.
In response to applicant’s argument that these missing elements are not optional design details or obvious variants, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not rely on design choice or obvious variants and which meets every claimed limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Zhu in light of Aoun would destroy the coordinated tearing of Zhu by replacing the perforation line and connection with Aoun’s simple hole, the Examiner replies that the modification does not change the principle of operation of Zhu. Tearing off the tear-off area 22 at the second perforation line 21 (first line of weakness) results in a sip hole 50 in the form of a dispensing hole 7 (opening) being accessible.
In response to applicant’s argument that the proposed combination of Zhu with Sioland would create structural incompatibilities because Sioland’s hinged lid system would interfere with the membrane’s function as the primary closure, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Modifying the body to have a lid 116 connected to the sidewall 30 (body) by hinge 125 and receivable by the sidewall 30 (body) would not interfere with the membrane in any fashion.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention requires the membrane to be “adhered to the body” which is not met by a separate hinged component, the Examiner replies that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not rely on any separate hinged component to read on the limitation of a membrane adhered to the body.
In response to applicant’s argument that Sioland’s upper reinforcing rim system is incompatible with the claimed membrane structure, the Examiner replies that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Further, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not rely on the upper reinforcing rim 115 of Sioland.
In response to applicant’s argument that a hinged lid system designed for bulk solids combined with Zhu’s beverage lid system and the claimed membrane structure would create conflicting closure mechanisms, the Examiner replies that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c). Where could the conflict occur? Modifying the body to have a lid 116 connected to the sidewall 30 (body) by hinge 125 and receivable by the sidewall 30 (body) would not interfere with the membrane in any fashion.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Examiner provides no motivation for why one would combine a hinged lid system designed for bulk solids with Zhu’s beverage lid system and the claimed membrane structure, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body to have a lid 116 connected to the sidewall 30 (body) by hinge 125 and receivable by the sidewall 30 (body), as taught by Sioland, in order to provide a means for closing the package 9 after opening of the top wall 2 (membrane).
In response to applicant’s argument that Pierron’s integrated approach is incompatible with adding independent tear strips or pre-formed holes, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
In response to applicant’s argument that Pierron is designed for flexible packaging films that can be “sealed against itself or against another packaging part” while Farrell is designed for rigid food containers with mechanical tear strips which represent fundamentally different packaging technologies, the Examiner responds that both Pierron and Farrell disclose their lids being formed of paper.
In response to applicant’s argument that none of the references disclose a removable central portion containing openings or “the central portion of the inner layer comprises one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness”, the Examiner responds that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that Pierron creates openings through coordinated film interactions, Farrell through sequential panel removal, and Aoun through simple hole coverage – none of which teaches a removable central portion that contains openings, the Examiner responds that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that even under the Examiner’s proposed combination the references fail to disclose “the central portion of the inner layer comprises one or more openings within the central portion inward of the second line of weakness”, the Examiner replies that Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. The prior art rejection clearly articulates how each of these limitations is met by the combination of the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination would result in this structure is unsupported by any actual teaching in the references, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Choe combination with Farrell and the JP reference fails to render the claimed invention obvious due to fundamental structural incompatibilities, the Examiner responds that no such fundamental structural incompatibilities have been persuasively put forth.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Choe combination with Farrell and the JP reference fails to render the claimed invention obvious due to lack of proper motivation to combine, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided angled cut lines 42 (second line of weakness) below the lid 4 (flap) and surrounding all of the outlines 7a, as taught by Farrell, in order to form a larger opening for increased flow and/or access when desired and additionally it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the lid 2 (membrane) to have replaced the half-cut lines formed along outlines 7a with like sized holes 12 (openings) covered and sealed with the release coating 9, as taught by 河合 広文, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
In response to applicant’s argument that importing Farrell’s tear strip structure into Choe would require surrounding Choe’s discharge holes with removable cut lines, which would eliminate the controlled sealing function of adhesive 8 around the discharge holes, destroy the water drainage functionality of by making the entire area around the holes removable, and convert Choe’s permanent drainage system into a completely removable panel system, where these mechanisms are wholly incompatible and would destroy the functionality of the Choe drainage system, the Examiner responds that no “controlled sealing function” of adhesive 8 around the discharge holes is eliminated. From figures 4 & 5a it can be seen that a release coating 9 is formed on a portion corresponding to the cover contact surface 6 which is the areas surrounding the discharge holes 7. Additionally, the water drainage functionality is not destroyed by having the ability to remove the area around the holes. The modification permits a user to use either the discharge holes 7 / holes 12 (openings) or to remove the central portion when increased flow or access are desired. Further, it is unclear what “permanent drainage system” applicant is referring to as the lid 2 of Choe is ultimately designed to be removed from the container 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that a combination of Choe and the JP reference is non-functional because one cannot simply replace Choe’s half-cut lines with the JP patent’s preformed holes while keeping Choe’s adhesive system as they are incompatible technologies, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. In no way are these incompatible technologies. Both Choe and the JP references disclose that their respective discharge holes 7 and holes 12 are for draining.
In response to applicant’s argument that even if combined, Choe, the JP patent, and Farrell would not each the specific “second line of weakness formed inward of the second perimeter” as required by the claims or the claimed relationship between the central portion, the openings, and the removable structure or the coordinated system of first and second seal areas as claimed, the Examiner replies that Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. The prior art rejection clearly articulates how each of these limitations is met by the combination of the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success because the proposed combination would create technical failures such as Choe’s water drainage system requires precisely controlled adhesive sealing around discharge holes, but Farrell’s tear strip system would eliminate this controlled sealing entirely, the Examiner replies that this functionality is not destroyed in any manner. The water drainage functionality is not destroyed by having the ability to remove the area around the holes. The modification permits a user to use either the discharge holes 7 / holes 12 (openings) or to remove the central portion when increased flow or access are desired. From figures 4 & 5a it can be seen that a release coating 9 is formed on a portion corresponding to the cover contact surface 6 which is the areas surrounding the discharge holes 7 which remains present in the combination.
In response to applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success because the proposed combination would create technical failures in that the JP patent’s pre-formed holes with easy release layers operate by fundamentally different mechanism than Choe’s half-cut lines with adhesive system, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Applicant does not even attempt to argue as to how the alleged technical failure would manifest. Replacing a material which is torn out to form an opening with a preformed opening would not create any technical failure. The intended purpose and principle of operation are not destroyed.
In response to applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success because the proposed combination would create technical failures as combining these incompatible sealing mechanisms would result in a non-functioning drainage system that serves neither reference’s intended purpose, the Examiner responds that the water drainage functionality is not destroyed. The modification permits a user to use either the discharge holes 7 / holes 12 (openings) or to remove the central portion when increased flow or access are desired.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s proposed combinations would require modifying the disclosed structures in ways that would destroy the functionality of the dispensing mechanisms disclosed in individual references; render the sealing and opening systems inoperable for their intended purposes; and create combinations that would not work as intended by any of the individual prior art references, the Examiner responds that Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. All alleged destroyed functionalities, inoperability’s, and alleged modifications which render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose have been addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
