DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment submitted on June 2, 2026 (“amendment”) in response to the Office action mailed on March 12, 2026 (“previous OA”) have been fully considered.
Support for new claim 12 can be found in paragraph 0031 of the specification and in the original claims.
In view of applicant’s amendment to the specification submitted with the amendment, the objection to the specification as set forth in the previous OA is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the claim objections and the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the previous OA are withdrawn.
In view of new claim 12, a new ground of rejection is introduced.
In view of the amendment, the prior art rejection of record as set forth in the previous OA are modified.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “between 4 and 6 μm” should be replaced with “between 4 and less than 6 μm” (see claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou-Yang (US 4772650) in view of Geitner, Werner et al. (EP 1918094 A1; English translation previously provided).
Claim 12 incorporates subject matter of claim 1 and further recites “wherein the cover consists of…heat-sealing film.”.
As to claims 1 and 12, Ou-Yang discloses a tamper-resistant inner seals that firmly bond to the lips of lidded and capped glass and plastic containers (seal for sealing a container having a stopper or cap closure (column 1, lines 5-15). The seal of Ou-Yang further includes a pulpboard backing 11 (substrate) coupled to a cover free of tab via a layer of wax 12 (temporary adhesive). Further, the cover comprises a metallic foil 13 (sheet of conductive material), a polymeric heat sealable film 14 (heat-sealing film configured to contact the mouth of a container), and other layers of material (reinforcing film) such as PET etc. interposed between the heat sealable polymeric film and the metallic foil (column 2, line 65 to column 3 line 15; column 7, lines 25-30 disclosing melting of the wax layer and bonding of the heat-sealable film to a lip of a container).
As to claim 12, the transitional phrase "consists of”, is interpreted to excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (i.e. “cover consists of…). See MPEP 2111.03 (II). The examiner submits that the metallic foil 13/other layers of material such as PET etc./heat sealable polymeric film 14, as disclosed by Ou-Yang (column 2, line 65 to column 3, line 10) meet claim limitation “cover consists of the sheet of conductive material, the reinforcing film, and the heat-sealing film”.
Ou-Yang 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 Ou-Yang, because Ou-Yang discloses that other layers of materials such as PET are provided between the polymeric film and the metallic foil and such reinforcing film further improves the strength of the overall innserseal.
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 previously provided).
As to claim 1, Diez discloses a tamper-resistant innerseal (seal for sealing containers having a stopper or cap 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 the 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) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 over Diez (US 4588099) in view of Geitner, Werner et al. (EP 1918094 A1), applicant argues that Geitner is directed to a packaging film that is wrapped around a food product, such as a chocolate Easter bunny. According to applicant, this is unrelated to a seal for sealing a container, such as a bottle. Further, applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not make the proposed combination due to the differences between a foil film material used to wrap a chocolate Easter bunny in Geitner, and the seal positioned in a cap for sealing containers in Diez. Page 7 of the amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference of Diez desires a reinforcing film. Specifically, Diez discloses 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). However, Diez does not disclose specific thickness of such reinforcing film. The invention of Diez relates polymeric film that can be utilized as a seal for containers that are used for dispensing consumer products such as medicines, food etc. (Colum 1, lines 5-20). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would naturally look to related food packaging art to seek a suitable thickness of a reinforcing film in order to practice the invention of Diez. Geitner discloses packaging film for packaging food products such as Easter bunnies. Thus, Geitner like Diez relates to sealing/packaging of food products. Moreover, Geitner discloses that plastic coated aluminum foils have higher strengths than mono-aluminum foils (paragraph 2 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. Therefore, 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 such, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the alleged reinforcing film in Geitner is not on the lower face of the aluminum foil. Instead, a lacquer 2 is positioned between the foil 1 and the polypropylene film 3. According to applicant, Geitner is directed to prior methods of using an adhesion promoter between the foil and polypropylene, and would not have the polypropylene on the lower face of the foil. Page 7 of the amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument related to presence of lacquer is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claim does not exclude presence of a lacquer layer or any other intervening layer between e.g. the lower face of the foil (sheet of conductive material) and a heat-sealing film (see claim 1).
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 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
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights