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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0001 of the specification recites “food61 products”. It appears that “food61” is typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claims 2-11 should be recited as “The heat-sealing two-piece seal” instead of “The seal” in order to provide consistency with the preamble of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
As to claim 1, this claim recites “two-piece seal”. It is unclear from the specification what is meant by “two-piece seal”.
Further, as to claim 1, this claim recites “cap-type”. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Further, as to claim 1, this claim recites “substrate made integral, by means of a temporary adhesive, with a cover free of a tab”. In view of the specification, this recitation is ambiguous. It is unclear what is meant by the aforementioned recitation For purpose of examination, this recitation is interpreted as a substrate coated with a temporary adhesive.
As to claim 3, this claim recites “polyester (PET)”. It is unclear whether applicant intends claim a genus “polyester” or specific species such as “polyethylene terephthalate (PET)”. For purpose of examination, this recitation is interpreted as either polyester or PET.
As to claim 7, this claim recites “substrate is made of a compressible material with recovery memory”. It is unclear what is meant by the recitation “recovery memory”. For purpose of examination, if a prior art discloses a compressible material, it will meet the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diez (US 4588099) in view of Geitner, Werner et al. (EP 1918094 A1; English translation attached with the Office action).
As to claim 1, Diez discloses a tamper-resistant innerseal (heat-sealing two-piece seal for sealing containers having a stopper or cap-type closure) that bond firmly to the lips or lidded or capped plastic containers (abstract). Further, the innerseal of Diez includes a pulpboard backing 11 (substrate), a layer 12 of wax coated on the backing (temporary adhesive), a metallic foil 13 (sheet of conductive material), an adhesive layer 14 applied over the foil layer, and a biaxially oriented polymeric film 15 (heat-sealing film configured to contact the mouth of a container) (Figure 1, column 2, lines 50-55). Further, Diez discloses that there are other layers of materials (reinforcing film) such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylidene chloride, ethylene/vinyl acetate, and the like that are interposed between the polymeric film and the metallic foil (column 2, lines 55-60). Accordingly, Diez discloses a reinforcing film on a lower face of the sheet of conductive material.
Further, as to claim 1, Diez discloses that upon heating the innerseal, the wax layer melts and generally absorbed by pulpboard backing, which weakens the bond between the backing and the metal foil (column 5, lines 1-5). As such, the wax layer of Diez is a temporary adhesive.
Further, as to claim 1, Dietz discloses that the biaxially oriented polymeric film 15 is formed of a heat sealable material (column 4, lines 1-5) and bonds firmly to the lip of the container (column 5, lines 5-10). Thus, the biaxially oriented polymeric film of Diez is a heat-sealing film as claimed.
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Diez is that Diez is silent as to disclosing a thickness of the reinforcing film of less than 6 µm.
Geitner discloses a composite foil comprising an aluminum foil 1 having a plastic foil or plastic film 3 (reinforcing film) made of polypropylene, polyester, or polyethylene terephthalate laminated to the aluminum foil using a lacquer 2, and a layer of heat sealing lacquer 7 on the plastic film (Figure 1, abstract, paragraph 13 on page 2 of the translation). Geitner further discloses that the plastic film has a thickness of preferably about 5 microns (paragraph 7 on page 2 of the translation), which is within the claimed range of less than 6 µm. Geitner further discloses that such plastic coated aluminum foils have higher strengths than mono-aluminum foils (paragraph 2 on page 2 of the translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reinforcing film having a thickness as disclosed by Geitner in the innerseal of Diez, because Diez discloses that other layers of materials such as PET are provided between the polymeric film and metallic foil and such reinforcing film further improves the strength of the overall innserseal.
As to claim 2, as set forth previously, Geitner discloses that the plastic film has a thickness of preferably about 5 microns (paragraph 7 on page 2 of the translation),which is within the claimed range of 4-6 µm.
As to claim 3, Diez and Geitner as set forth previously discloses reinforcing film formed of PET.
As to claim 4, Diez discloses that the metallic foil 13 is formed of Al (column 3, lines 20-25).
As to claim 5, Diez discloses that the metallic foil has a thickness of not greater than about 75 µm, and preferably from about 5 to about 37.5 µm (column 3, lines 25-27). The claimed range of between 20 µm and 40 µm overlaps or lies within the range disclosed by Diez such that prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As to claims 6 and 10, Diez discloses that the heats-sealing film comprises polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene (column 4, lines 1-5).
As to claim 8, Diez discloses that the backing 11 can be replaced with paper (column 4, lines 59-60).
As to claim 9 limitation “the seal is configured for use with a glass container containing dry products”, the examiner submits that this limitation is deemed to be an intended use in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Given that the seal of Diez as modified by Geitner as set forth previously renders obvious claimed seal, it meets the intended use of the claimed seal (i.e. seal of Diez as modified by Geitner is configured for use with a glass container containing dry products).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diez (US 4588099) in view of Geitner, Werner et al. (EP 1918094 A1; English translation attached with the Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ou-Yang (US 4818577).
Diez discloses that the backing can be formed of a polymeric foam (column 4, lines 59-60). However, Diez is silent as to disclosing claims 7 and 11.
Ou-Yang discloses a liner suitable for use with caps for containers and innerseal (abstract, column 3, lines 34-35). The liner of Ou-Yang includes a layer of compressible polymeric foam so that it can conform to the rim or lip of the container (abstract, column 2, lines 5-7). Further, as example, Ou-Yang discloses polymeric foams such as polyethylene and polypropylene (column 2, lines 30-35). Thus, Ou-Yang suggests claimed compressible material of claims 7 and 11 (expanded PE and expanded PP).
Diez desires that the backing (substrate) can be formed of a polymeric foam. It would have been obvious to select any of the compressible foams disclosed by Ou-Yang and use it to form the substrate of Diez, since selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie case of obviousness, and use of such substrate comprising a compressible polymeric foam would be obvious so that the substrate can conform to a rim or lip of a container. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR2913672 discloses a heat-sealable seal (English translation provided).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 11, 2026