DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on August 5, 2025.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 11, 17 and 22 have been amended,
Claims 2-8, 12-16 and 18-21 were previously presented, and
Claims 9-10 have been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 11-22 are currently pending.
Drawings
Applicant has submitted replacement drawings (dated 08/05/2025) in an attempt to address the drawing objections mentioned in the last office action (dated 06/06/2025). The replacement drawing (dated 08/05/2025) is not acceptable because of the following:
However, Examiner still maintains the drawing objections (with respect to claims 18-20) mentioned in the last office action (dated July 6, 2025) because when doing a side-by-side comparison (shown below) of replacement fig. 5 and the original drawings (specifically fig. 2). It appears that the sealing member (i.e. element (155); that applicant is referring to) appears to be the same line that defines the flange structure of the first sealing member (210) NOT an actual sealing member (as required in claims 18-20); emphasis added.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
1497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In the art rejection below, examiner will treat or construe “at least one piercing structure is configured to irreversibly deform” to mean that the at least one piercing structure has frangible connections or bridges (with respect to the first sealing member or lid/cover/closure/cap) that are broken (i.e. irreversibly deform as claimed) and the at least one piercing structure CANNOT revert back to its original position NOR can it be reattached to the first sealing member or lid/cover/closure/cap); emphasis added.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seelhofer (US 7163127 B2; hereinafter Seelhofer) in view of Woolf et al. (US 20120298532 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Woolf).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 14, Seelhofer teaches a lid structure for a container, said lid structure comprising:
a first lid member (i.e. the overall cap which includes an upper part (1), an associated lid cap (2) AND a hinge (3) is what the examiner equates to the claimed first lid member), and
a second lid member (i.e. in the form of sealing film (27)), said first lid member connected to said second lid member to form a cavity (i.e. when the sealing film (27) is attached to the interior of the first lid member AND the upper part (1) is in the CLOSED position – it creates an air pocket or void above the sealing film and surround the at least one piercing member 24 – as shown in Seelhofer Figs. 5 and 8) between said first lid member and said second lid member,
said cavity filled with air;
wherein said first lid member comprises at least one piercing structure (6, 8-13, 24 and 25) configured to be operable by a user to pierce said second lid member and release said air from said cavity,
wherein said at least one piercing structure is configured to irreversibly deform after operation by said user (i.e. the frangible connection or bridges are broken and the at least one piercing member is pressed downwards – see specifically Seelhofer Fig. 9), and
wherein the operation of said at least one piercing structure by said user reduces a volume of the cavity (Seelhofer Col. 3 ln. 60 – Col. 7 ln. 43 and Figs. 1-9).
Examiner’s note: the cavity (of Seelhofer) has a volume, which is denoted by the arch-like outward formation (22). In other words, the arch-like outward formation (22) has a dome-shaped (in Fig. 8), which indicates an initial volume of air stored therein. Whereas (in Fig. 9), the same arch-like outward formation (22) is pressed completely downwards and the piercing member breaks the internal sealing film (27 – i.e. the claimed second sealing member), which indicates that the initial volume of stored air inside the cavity has completely emptied into the body of the container or bottle (i.e. the new volume of the cavity is considered 0%; therefore, the final volume of the cavity is less than 30% of the initial volume – as claimed); emphasis added.
However, Seelhofer fails to teach the cavity being gas-tight (i.e. fully sealed), and wherein said gas tight cavity filled with an inert atmosphere, specifically nitrogen gas.
Woolf is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Seelhofer, which is a dispense capsule. Woolf teaches a dispensing capsule embodiment (i.e. fully sealed and which examiner equates to the claimed gas tight cavity; emphasis added), wherein the dispensing capsule (2) is substantially filled with an additive (4) and an inert atmosphere, wherein the inert atmosphere is nitrogen gas (Woolf [0557] and Fig. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fully seal the cavity (of Seelhofer) and filled it with nitrogen gas (as taught by Woolf) to prevent degradation of the content stored therein or the base portion of the container.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 3, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing structure comprises at least one piercing member (24; see Seelhofer Figs. 2-3, 5-6 and 8).
Regarding claim 4, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing member is positioned centrally within said at least one piercing structure (see Seelhofer Figs. 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing member comprises a spike (24; see Seelhofer Figs. 2-3, 5-6 and 8).
Regarding claim 6, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing member comprises at least one rib (25; see Seelhofer Figs. 2-3, 5-6 and 8).
Regarding claim 7, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing member is positioned centrally within said first lid member (see Seelhofer Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
Examiner’s note: the piercing member (of Seelhofer) is NOT provided on the periphery of the first lid member. Rather, the location of the piercing member (of Seelhofer) is towards the middle. Therefore, examiner considered the piercing member (of Seelhofer) to be centrally positioned as claimed; emphasis added.
However, to the degree it can be argued that it is not centrally positioned.
Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the piercing member (of Seelhofer) as close to the center of the first lid member WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE SPOUT (of Seelhofer) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C)
Regarding claim 8, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein said at least one piercing structure comprises a plurality of ribs (25; see Seelhofer Figs. 2-3, 5-6 and 8).
Regarding claim 11, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein the operation of said at least one piercing structure by said user reduces the volume of the gas tight cavity to less than 10% of the initial volume of the gas tight cavity.
Examiner’s note: the gas tight cavity (of modified Seelhofer) has a volume, which is denoted by the arch-like outward formation (22). In other words, the arch-like outward formation (22) has a dome-shaped (in Fig. 8), which indicates an initial volume of air stored therein. Whereas (in Fig. 9), the same arch-like outward formation (22) is pressed completely downwards and the piercing member breaks the internal sealing film (27 – i.e. the claimed second sealing member), which indicates that the initial volume of stored air inside the gas tight cavity has completely emptied into the body of the container or bottle (i.e. the new volume of the gas tight cavity is considered 0%; therefore, the final volume of the gas cavity is less than 10% of the initial volume – as claimed); emphasis added.
Regarding claims 12-13, Seelhofer as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the second lid member comprises a frangible portion, wherein said frangible portion comprises a line of weakness or point of weakness.
Woolf teaches the following, “…using weakness lines, or scoring at the desire site of the opening Such lines or score may be a single slit (i.e. the claimed line of weakness), two slits perpendicular to one another, or multiple slits…” on the material that makes up the additive chamber (Woolf [0188]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second lid member (i.e. sealing film (27) of Seelhofer) with similar a single slit (weakness line; as taught by Woolf) so the second lid member can easily rupture without excessive force.
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein the connection between said first lid member and said second lid member comprises a heat weld or an adhesive (i.e. bonded; Seelhofer Col. 6 ln. 24-27).
Regarding claim 17, Seelhofer teaches a kit of parts, said kit of parts comprising:
a lid structure comprising:
a first lid member (i.e. the overall cap which includes an upper part (1), an associated lid cap (2) AND a hinge (3) is what the examiner equates to the claimed first lid member); and
a second lid member (i.e. in the form of sealing film (27))s;
said first lid member connected to said second lid member to form a cavity (i.e. when the sealing film (27) is attached to the interior of the first lid member AND the upper part (1) is in the CLOSED position – it creates an air pocket or void above the sealing film and surround the at least one piercing member 24 – as shown in Seelhofer Figs. 5 and 8) between said first lid member and said second lid member,
said cavity filled with air,
wherein said first lid member comprises at least one piercing structure (6, 8-13, 24 and 25) configured to be operable by a user to pierce said second lid member and release said air from said cavity,
wherein said at least one piercing structure is configured to irreversibly deform after operation by said user (i.e. the frangible connection or bridges are broken and the at least one piercing member is pressed downwards – see specifically Seelhofer Fig. 9),
wherein the operation of said at least one piercing structure by said user reduces a volume of the cavity; and
a container, wherein said lid structure is sized to form a substantially gas tight fit with said container (Seelhofer Col. 3 ln. 60 – Col. 7 ln. 43 and Figs. 1-9).
Examiner’s note: the cavity (of Seelhofer) has a volume, which is denoted by the arch-like outward formation (22). In other words, the arch-like outward formation (22) has a dome-shaped (in Fig. 8), which indicates an initial volume of air stored therein. Whereas (in Fig. 9), the same arch-like outward formation (22) is pressed completely downwards and the piercing member breaks the internal sealing film (27 – i.e. the claimed second sealing member), which indicates that the initial volume of stored air inside the cavity has completely emptied into the body of the container or bottle (i.e. the new volume of the cavity is considered 0%; therefore, the final volume of the cavity is less than 30% of the initial volume – as claimed); emphasis added.
However, Seelhofer fails to teach the cavity being gas-tight (i.e. fully sealed), and wherein said gas tight cavity filled with an inert atmosphere, specifically nitrogen gas.
Woolf is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Seelhofer, which is a dispense capsule. Woolf teaches a dispensing capsule embodiment (i.e. fully sealed and which examiner equates to the claimed gas tight cavity; emphasis added), wherein the dispensing capsule (2) is substantially filled with an additive (4) and an inert atmosphere, wherein the inert atmosphere is nitrogen gas (Woolf [0557] and Fig. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fully seal the cavity (of Seelhofer) and filled it with nitrogen gas (as taught by Woolf) to prevent degradation of the content stored therein or the base portion of the container.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 21, modified Seelhofer as above further teaches wherein the lid structure is reversibly removable from said container.
Regarding claim 22, modified Seelhofer as set forth above (in the art rejection of claims 1, 14 and 17, respectively) teaches a method of producing a lid structure having a first lid member, and a second lid member, said first lid member connected to said second lid member to form a gas tight cavity between said first lid member and said second lid member, said gas tight cavity filled with an inert atmosphere, wherein said first lid member comprises at least one piercing structure configured to be operable by a user to pierce said second lid member and release said inert atmosphere from said gas tight cavity, wherein said at least one piercing structure is configured to irreversibly deform after operation by said user, and wherein the operation of said at least one piercing structure by said user reduces a volume of the gas tight cavity to less than 30% of an initial volume of the gas tight cavity, said method comprising:
providing said first lid member, providing said second lid member, and
connecting said first lid member to said second lid member to form a gas tight cavity whilst encapsulating an inert atmosphere within said gas tight cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 5, 2025 with respect to claims 1-8, 11-17, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the argument do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736