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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abraham (US-9845181-B2).
Abraham discloses a laminate/vented sealing member for sealing to a rim of a container (Fig. 13), the vented sealing member comprising: a support member (68) having at least one layer, the support member defining a vent opening (32b) extending from a lower surface to an upper surface through the support member; a sealant layer (64) positioned on the lower surface of the support member for securing the vented sealing member to the rim of the container; an upper laminate (64, the claims do not define what it is upper to) partially coupled to the support member and defining a tab (72), and a vent layer (70) that is a partial layer positioned over the vent opening and coupled to the upper surface of the support member about the vent opening (Fig. 13; col. 13, lines 6-13), wherein the vented sealing member does not include vent layer positioned on the lower surface of the support member (col. 13, lines 6-7, the location of the lower vent layer can be changed), wherein the vent layer is welded to the upper surface of the support member (col. 12, lines 9-13; col. 13, lines 6-13), wherein the support member is a laminate comprising a plurality of layers (col. 13, lines 8-10).
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) 3, 10, 11, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US-9845181-B2) in view of Fisch (US-10351320-B2).
Abraham disclose all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein he vent opening has a diameter of about 0.005 to 0.060 inches.
Fisch teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a support member (12) with vent openings (34) that can have diameters of about 0.005 to 0.060 inches (col. 3. Ll. 61 – col. 4, ll. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the vent opening with the claimed sizes, in order to adjust what could pass through the opening, and since such a modification would be using known vent opening size on a support member. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. ). The method claimed is present in the modified structure taught by Abraham.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, 14-17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US-9845181-B2) in view of Bourgeois (US-20180186122-A1).
Abraham fails to teach the support member comprises at least one of a polymer film, a polymer foam, a metal foil, a pulp material, paper, and combinations thereof, and wherein the vent opening is positioned below the tab or not below the tab.
Bourgeois teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a support member as a laminate comprising a plurality of layers (Abstract), wherein the support member comprises at least one of a polymer film, a polymer foam, a metal foil, a pulp material, paper, and combinations thereof (pars. 0025-0027), and further comprising an upper laminate partially coupled to the support member and defining a tab (par. 0145), wherein tab only covers apportion of the support member (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the support member as a laminate with the claimed materials, in order to adjust the properties of the member and 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the sealing member with a tab, in order to make it easier to remove the sealing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have located the vent opening beneath or not beneath, in order to adjust how long the vent path was and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the modified rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733