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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lampe et al. (5,934,512) in view of reference Braeckman et al. (2021/0017475).
Regarding claim 5, Lampe et al. disclose a self-closing dispensing valve (16) comprising:
a valve head (see figure 1 below) with a dispensing orifice (see figure 1 below) cut into the valve head (see figure 1 below); and
a peripheral retaining flange (see figure 1 below) adapted to fix the valve (16) in a dispensing closure (12),
wherein the valve (16) has an opening and closing characteristic,
wherein the dispensing orifice (see figure 1 below) defines an opening area when a pressure on the interior side is applied on the valve (16) at room temperature, and
wherein the valve is adapted to be exposed to temperatures between 50-80ºC without changing the opening and closing characteristics for normal use at room temperature.
(Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 7-11, Column 5 lines 16-21)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dispensing Orifice)][AltContent: textbox (Flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Valve Head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lampe et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
500
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In column 4 lines 52-55, Lampe et al. disclose the container is filled with the product. In column 5 lines 19-21, Lampe et al. disclose the container being hot filled at 180ºF. This implies the valve is fully capable of functioning when the container is hot filled. Therefore, Lampe et al. is interpreted to disclose the valve is fully capable of being exposed to temperatures of 50-80ºC without changing the opening and closing characteristics.
In column 3 lines 2-6, Lampe et al. disclose the valve can be made from any resiliently flexible material. However, Lampe et al. do not disclose the valve being made of plastomer material
Braeckman et al. disclose a self-closing dispensing valve (19) made of a resiliently flexible material, wherein a suitable resiliently flexible material includes: a PE blend comprising different grades of PE; and a silicon rubber. (Pages 8-9 paragraph 102)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the silicone rubber with the PE blend as taught by Braeckman et al., since pages 8-9 paragraph 102 of Braeckman et al. states the PE blend would work equally well at having opening and closing characteristics, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Lampe et al. modified by Braeckman et al. disclose the plastomer contains a blend of different grades of PE. (Braeckman et al. – Pages 8-9 paragraph 102)
Regarding claim 7, Lampe et al. a method of packaging a dispensible edible substance in a container (44), the method comprising the steps of:
heating the substance in a filling device to a preservation improving temperature;
filling the container (44) by the filling device at said temperature; and
closing the container (44) by assembling the container (44) with a dispensing closure (10),
wherein the dispensing closure (10) comprises a self-closing dispensing valve (16),
wherein the self-closing dispensing valve (16) comprises:
a valve head (see figure 1 above) with a dispensing orifice (see figure 1 above) cut into the valve head (see figure 1 above); and
a peripheral retaining flange (see figure 1 above) adapted to fix the valve (16) in a dispensing closure (12),
wherein the valve (16) has an opening and closing characteristic,
wherein the dispensing orifice (see figure 1 above) defines an opening area when a pressure on the interior side is applied on the valve (16) at room temperature, and
wherein the valve is adapted to be exposed to temperatures of 50-80ºC without changing the opening and closing characteristics for normal use at room temperature.
(Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 7-11, Column 4 lines 52-55, Column 5 lines 16-21)
In column 4 lines 52-55 of Lampe et al., the container is filled with the product. In column 5 lines 19-21, Lampe et al. disclose the container being hot filled at 180ºF. This implies the valve is fully capable of functioning when the container is hot filled. Therefore, Lampe et al. is interpreted to disclose the valve is fully capable of being exposed to temperatures of 50-80ºC without changing the opening and closing characteristics.
In column 4 lines 52-55 of Lampe et al., the container are filled with the product. In column 3 lines 2-6, Lampe et al. disclose the valve can be made from any resiliently flexible material. However, Lampe et al. do not disclose the valve being made of plastomer material
Braeckman et al. disclose a self-closing dispensing valve (19) made of a resiliently flexible material, wherein a suitable resiliently flexible material includes: a PE blend comprising different grades of PE; and a silicon rubber. (Pages 8-9 paragraph 102)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the silicone rubber with the PE blend as taught by Braeckman et al., since pages 8-9 paragraph 102 of Braeckman et al. states the PE blend would work equally well at having opening and closing characteristics, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Lampe et al. modified by Braeckman et al. disclose the plastomer is a flexible PE material. (Braeckman et al. – Pages 8-9 paragraph 102)
Regarding claim 12, Lampe et al. modified by Braeckman et al. disclose the plastomer material is a PE blend comprising two grades of PE. (Braeckman et al. – Pages 8-9 paragraph 102)
Regarding claim 13, Lampe et al. modified by Braeckman et al. disclose the substance is heated in the filling device to a preservation improving temperature in range 70-90ºC. (Lampe et al. – Column 5 lines 19-21)
Regarding claim 14, Lampe et al. modified by Braeckman et al. disclose the substance is heated in the filling device to a preservation improving temperature in range 70-85ºC. (Lampe et al. – Column 5 lines 19-21)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 01/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of objections towards the drawings, in view of the amendments to the drawings, Examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
In response to the arguments of objections towards the claims, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the claims objections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Braeckman et al. (2021/0017475) modified by reference Day et al. (2021/0277231), in view of the arguments, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Lampe et al. (5,934,512) modified by reference Braeckman et al. (2021/0017475), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Substituting the silicone rubber of the valve by a PE blend, as the Examiner suggest, will inevitably mean that heat-resisting property (inherent to the silicone material) is lost.
In column 3 lines 2-6 of Lampe et al., the self-sealing dispensing valve is disclosed to be formed from a resiliently flexible material. While Lampe et al. do disclose silicone rubber as a preferred material, Lampe et al. do not disclose that silicone rubber is the only material that can be used, nor disclose that silicone rubber is the only material that can provide heat-resisting properties. “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”. [MPEP 2123 (I)] “The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”. [MPEP 2143.1 (I)]
Furthermore, since Applicant does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that the silicone rubber is the only material with heat-resisting properties, the assertion is mere speculation. “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”. [MPEP 2145 (I)] Therefore, in view of Applicant no providing support for the assertion, and in view of Lampe et al. disclosing other materials may be used, Applicant’s arguments is rendered moot.
Applicant states:
Moreover, Braeckman does not teach that any PE blend provides a heat resistance comparable to the heat resistance of a silicone rubber valve.
In column 3 lines 2-6 of Lampe et al., the self-sealing dispensing valve is disclosed to be formed from a resiliently flexible material. While Lampe et al. do disclose silicone rubber as a preferred material, Lampe et al. do not disclose that silicone rubber is the only material that can be used, nor disclose the selected material must have a particular heat resistance property.
On pages 8-9 paragraph 102 of Braeckman et al., valve is disclosed to be molded from a material which is flexible, pliable, elastic, and resilient. Braeckman et al. also a suitable material includes silicone rubber and LLDPE/LDPE blends. Therefore, since Lampe et al. discloses the self-sealing dispensing valve formed from a resiliently flexible material, and since Braeckman et al. disclose both silicone rubber and PE blends are considered flexible, pliable, elastic, and resilient material suitable for a self-sealing dispensing valve, the PE blend would work equally well at having opening and closing characteristics, thereby rendering the substitution of the silicone rubber with the PE blend to have predictable results.
Applicant states:
Although the method according to which the valve of claim 5 is manufactured does not limit the scope of claim 5, it is clear that such a valve is obtained by the step of residing in the oven at 55-60 ºC.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., residing in the oven at 55-60 ºC) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states:
The Examiner does not provide evidence that a PE valve that did not undergo relaxation, i.e., that did not reside in an oven at 50-60ºC, does not have its opening properties spoilt by the temperature stress during hot filling.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., undergo relaxation and residing in the oven at 55-60 ºC) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 May 22, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights