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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/10/2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 6 said claim is held to be indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the at least sectional protrusion of the pressure opening region”. Furthermore, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “destroyed”. What does said limitation require?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et la (US 2010/0243508) in view of Nakamura (US 4,420,080).
Sekiguchi teaches a method for sealing a continuous clearance in a substrate, the method comprising: a) producing or providing a lid member (3) (herein understood to read on the claimed “bonding element” comprising: i) a thermal; adhesive (abstract) Herein understood to read on the claimed “adhesive layer comprising an adhesive”) and a resin film (herein understood to read on the claimed “carrier layer”) disposed on the adhesive layer (abstract); and b) adhering the bonding element by means of the adhesive layer to the substrate such that the bonding element completely covers the pocket (herein understood to read on the claimed “continuous clearance”) (0036; Figures). The pocket is hermetically sealed (abstract) by the bonding element - herein understood to read on the claimed “fluid- tightly sealed”.
The bonding element comprises weakening cut points (abstract-herein understood to read on the claimed “weakening region formed in the carrier layer”) which pass fully or partially through the resin layer (0041)-herein understood to read on the claimed “mean thickness of the carrier layer in the weakening region being lower than the mean thickness of the carrier layer in the pressure opening region.” The bonding element is configured such that the action of a predetermined opening pressure on the pressure opening region at least partly irreversibly destroys the bonding element in the weakening region and forms a through hole in the bonding element ()002), and the bonding element is adhered such that the pressure opening region at least partly covers the continuous clearance in the substrate (0008).
Sekiguchi does not teach that the bonding element further comprises a masking element that is mounted in the pressure opening region on the side of the adhesive layer that is remote from the carrier layer. However, Nakamura teaches sealable bonding element to be mounted over an opening in a package (abstract). Nakamura teaches that a non-adhesive member (herein understood to read on the claimed “masking element” comprising a plastic “foil”) which has the same area as the opening which is being covered may be applied to the adhesive layer in order to prevent the adhesive from directly contact the contents in the package (col 3, lines 63+). Said non-adhesive member may comprise a flexible film of a synthetic resin such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, or the like (col 5, lines 29+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply a masking element to the adhesive surface of Sekiguchi’s lid member corresponding thot he size of the pocket. The motivation for doing so would have been said masking element prevent the adhesive from directly contacting the elements in the package.
With regards to claim 2, Sekiguchi teaches the weakening cut point may be an elongated indentation(see Figure 6)-herein understood to read on the claimed “flute-like clearance in the carrier layer.”
With regards to claim 3, Sekiguchi is relied upon as above but does not explicitly teach the predetermined opening pressure of the package should be 10 kPa or more. However, Sekiguchi teaches that the pressure required to press through the lidding film is a result effect variable determined by the thickness of the film (0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the carrier film in order to optimize the opening pressure of the package. The motivation for doing so would have been said thickness is taught by Sekiguchi to be a result effective variable controlling the opening pressure of the package.
With regards to claim 4, Sekiguchi teaches the lid film may further comprise an aluminum foil (herein understood to read on the claimed “protective foil”) as a further carrier ply (abstract). The aluminum foil may be on the side of the first carrier ply that is remote from the adhesive layer (0037).
With regards to claim 6, Sekiguchi teaches the claimed method wherein the bonding element is adhered, by the at least sectional protrusion of the pressure opening region over the edge of the continuous clearance, such that the adhered bonding element withstands the action of a predetermined loading pressure on the carrier layer in the pressure opening region, so that the bonding element is not irreversibly destroyed in the weakening region and no through hole is formed in the bonding element.
With regards to claim 7, Sekiguchi is relied upon as above, but does not teach the predetermined loading pressure is 100 kPa or more. However, it is known in the art that adhesive strength is a result effective variable controlled by the temperature and pressure at which the adhesive is applied to a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the loading pressure of the bonding element in order to optimize the adhesive seal between with boding element and package.
With regards to claim 8, Sekiguchi teaches a lid member (herein understood to read on the claimed “bonding element”) comprising an adhesive layer comprising an adhesive; a carrier layer disposed on the adhesive layer and comprising a first carrier ply, wherein the bonding element comprises a pressure opening region that is surrounded at least sectionally by a weakening region formed in the carrier layer, the mean thickness of the carrier layer in the weakening region being lower than the mean thickness of the carrier layer in the pressure opening region (see above; abstract). The bonding element is configured such that the action of a predetermined opening pressure on the pressure opening region at least partly irreversibly destroys the bonding element in the weakening region and forms a through hole in the bonding element (0002). With regards to the claim limitation “for permanently sealing continuous clearances with overpressure protection” said limitation is understood to be a preamble limitation that recites the intended use of the claimed bonding element and is no understood to further structurally limit the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 9, Sekiguchi teaches a substrate, comprising a fluid-tightly sealed interior having at least one fluid-tightly sealed opening (hermetically sealed-abstract), the sealed opening being fluid-tightly sealed with the bonding element of claim 8 (See Figures; discussion above), wherein the pressure opening region of the bonding element at least partly covers the sealed opening (claim 8), wherein the overpressure-protected substrate is configured such that as a consequence of a predetermined overpressure in the interior, the bonding element is at least partly irreversibly destroyed in the weakening region, so that the pressure in the interior can be relieved by the through hole formed in the bonding element (0002).
With regards to claim 10, Sekiguchi teaches a method comprising permanently sealing a continuous clearance in a substrate with the bonding element of claim 8 (see above with regards to limitations of claim 8) wherein the continuous clearance is sealed with the bonding element such that the pressure opening region at least partly covers the continuous clearance in the substrate (claim 8).
With regards to claim 11, Nakamura teaches the non-adhesive member may comprise a plastic film (col 5, lines 30+). Said film is understood to read on the claimed “foil”.
With regards to claim 12, Nakamura teaches that a non-adhesive member has the same area as the opening which is being covered in order to prevent the adhesive from directly contact the contents in the package. Said area is understood to correspond to “dimensions of the pressure opening region of bonding element.”
With regards to claims 13 and 14, Nakamura does not teach the claimed thickness of the masking element. However, Nakamura teaches that the masking element should be flexible. It is known in the art that the flexibility of a film is dependent upon the thickness of the film. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the masking element in order to optimize the flexibility of said element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Sekiguchi nor Nakamura discloses or teaches a masking element mounted on a side of the adhesive located opposite the carrier layer wherein the masking element is disposed over the pressure sensitive opening region of the bonding element and comprises a foil. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the rejection. It is unclear from applicant’s argument how they believe the examiner erred in concluding Nakamura renders obvious the use of a masking element mounted on a side of the adhesive located opposite the carrier layer wherein the masking element is disposed over the pressure sensitive opening region of the bonding element and comprises a foil. If applicant’s position is maintained, applicant is requested to provide additional argument as to why the masking element of Nakamura differs from the claimed masking element.
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 KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787