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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1–13 and 18–20 in the reply filed on August 03, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1–4, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rault et al., EP 2,394,926 A1.1
Regarding claim 1, Rault teaches a receptacle (see stopper 1 together with skirt 7) for regulating an atmosphere in a packaging (see Fig. 6, para. [0019], [0068]), the receptacle comprising a body portion (see skirt 7) and at least one cap portion (see stopper 1) configured to close an open end of the body portion (see upper end of skirt 7), the at least one cap portion (see stopper 1) being impermeable to liquids and permeable to gases (see gas permeable membrane 60 with the stopper 1 sealing the dispensing opening in a moisture tight manner to keep contents in container dry, [0040]), the body portion and the at least one cap portion together defining a chamber suitable for housing an active substance (the space between flow reducer 74 of skirt 7 and membrane 60 is suitable for housing a solid active substance; additionally, the whole space enclosed by stopper 1 and skirt 7 can be considered to be a chamber, with membrane 60 dividing said chamber into two parts, one of said parts, i.e chamber 6, being filled with active substances, said space is thus “configured to contain an active substance”), wherein the body portion (see skirt 7) comprises a side wall defining a transverse flange (see upper end 70 of skirt 7) in the vicinity of the open end, wherein the at least one cap portion (stopper 1) comprises a base wall (see top wall of stopper 1) and a sealing skirt (see body element 2 of stopper 1, see also para. [0069]) internally offset relative to an outer periphery (see figure 6) of the base wall so that a transverse edge is defined between the sealing skirt (2) and the outer periphery of the base wall, wherein, in the assembled configuration of the body portion (i.e. skirt 7) and the at least one cap portion (i.e. stopper 1), the at least one cap portion is in a sealing position in which the sealing skirt (i.e. body element 2 of stopper 1) is sealingly pressed against an inner surface of the side wall (of skirt 7) in such a way that a liquid-tight seal is formed between the body portion and the at least one cap portion (see para. [0069]), while the transverse edge of the at least one cap portion is in abutment against the transverse flange of the body portion (see figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
881
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rault teaches that the sealing skirt (2) of the at least one cap portion (1) has an inwardly slanted sealing surface (fastening element 28, which includes an inwardly slanted surface toward the bottom half, as seen in Fig. 1) configured to be pressed against the inner surface of the side wall of the body portion (7) ([0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Rault teaches that the at least one cap portion (1) is secured to the body portion (7) by press fitting between the sealing skirt (2) of the at least one cap portion (1) and the inner surface of the side wall of the body portion (7) ([0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Rault teaches that the body portion (7) further comprises a guiding surface for automatically positioning the at least one cap portion (1) in its sealing position (the surface formed at the opening at the top of skirt 7), with its transverse edge in abutment against the transverse flange of the body portion (7) (as seen in Fig. 6 where the corner formed by the T at the top of body element 2 abuts against the upper end 70 of skirt 7) and its sealing skirt (2) pressed against the inner surface of the side wall of the body portion (7) (seen in Fig. 6), upon relative displacement of the body portion (7) and the at least one cap portion (1) parallel to a main axis of the open end of the body portion (7) (due to the press fit between stopper 1 and skirt 7, [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Rault teaches that the base wall of the at least one cap portion (1) further comprises at least one reinforcing rib (the crimp-like structure at the bottom of stopper 1, as seen in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Rault teaches that the receptacle is a capsule or canister (as it forms desiccant chamber 6, [0051]), or a stopper (as it forms a structure within volume 80, Fig. 6, [0064]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rault et al., EP 2,394,926 A1 in view of Biesecker Longacre et al., US 2018/0099797 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Rault teaches that the at least one cap portion (1) is in its sealing position (the surface formed at the opening at the top of skirt 7), with its transverse edge in abutment against the transverse flange of the body portion (7) (as seen in Fig. 6 where the corner formed by the T at the top of body element 2 abuts against the upper end 70 of skirt 7) and its sealing skirt (2) pressed against the inner surface of the side wall of the body portion (7) (seen in Fig. 6, due to the press fit between stopper 1 and skirt 7, [0034]).
Rault differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to a gas-permeable stiffening cover configured to be secure in contact with the base wall of the at least one cap portion (1).
But the bottom of the body element 2 of Rault comprises a moisture permeable membrane 60. See Rault Fig. 6, [0052]. Also, Biesecker Longacre teaches a container for humidity control comprising a moisture permeable sealing membrane 315 with a gas permeable compartment lid 318 (the “gas-permeable stiffening cover”) covering the bottom of the membrane 315. See Biesecker Longacre Fig. 7, [0053]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the lid 318 is beneficial for protecting the membrane 315. It would have been obvious to provide the lid 318 of Biesecker Longacre to be secured in contact with the base wall of the at least one cap portion (1) of Rault to provide a protective mechanism for the membrane 60.
Regarding claim 9, Rault teaches that the at least one cap portion (1) is made at least partially of moisture permeable membrane 60 (Fig. 6, [0052]).
Rault differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the material of the moisture permeable membrane 60. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the membrane 60 is made of a thermoplastic elastomer having a water vapor transmission rate of greater than or equal to 10 g.mm/m2.day at 38°C, 90%RH.
But Biesecker Longacre teaches a container for humidity control comprising a moisture permeable sealing membrane made from a thermoplastic elastomer. See Biesecker Longacre [0039]. Biesecker Longacre also teaches that the water vapor transmission rate through the membrane is result effective because it affects the results of the moisture control device. Id. Biesecker Longacre teaches that a water vapor transmission rate of about 10 g water/100 in2.day (about 155 g/m2.day) provides good results. Id.
It would have been obvious to manufacture the membrane 60 of Rault from the thermoplastic elastomer material of Biesecker Longacre because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. It also would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal water vapor transmission rate through the membrane 60 to achieve desired moisture flow results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of greater than or equal to 10 g.mm/m2.day at 38°C, 90%RH because Biesecker Longacre teaches that its membrane has a water vapor transmission rate of about 10 g water/100 in2.day (about 155 g/m2.day). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 10, Rault teaches that the body portion (7) is impermeable to liquids and gases, as claimed, because it is moisture-tightly sealed ([0069]).
Rault differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to the material used to make the body portion (7). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the body portion (7) being made of a polymer-based material.
But Biesecker Longacre teaches container for humidity control where the body of the container is liquid and gas impermeable and is made of a rigid polymeric material. See Biesecker Longacre [0030].
It would have been obvious to manufacture the body portion (7) of Rault from a polymeric material because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rault et al., EP 2,394,926 A1 in view of Dahlgren, US 6,143,058.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Rault teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Rault differs from claims 11 and 19 because it is silent as to the water vapor adsorption rate of the receptacle. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the receptacle having a water vapor adsorption rate of greater than or equal to 10 mg/day or 30 mg/day at 40°C, 75%RH, as claimed.
But the receptacle includes a desiccant chamber 6 having a desiccant material ([0051]. Also, Dahlgren teaches an adsorbent material for adsorbing moisture where the adsorbent material has a rate of water vapor adsorption of about 30 g/200 min (interpreted as being at least 10 mg/day at 40°C, 75%RH). See Dahlgren Fig. 5, col. 17, ll. 21–31. It would have been obvious to use the adsorbent material of Dahlgren as the desiccant material of Rault to provide a desiccant material with a relatively high adsorption rate.
Regarding claim 13, Rault teaches that the chamber of the receptacle is filled with an active substance (desiccant material, [0051]).
Rault differs from claim 13 because it is silent as to the desiccant material being in liquid or gel form.
But Dahlgren teaches that silica gel is a suitable adsorbent material for water vapor adsorption. See Dahlgren col. 2, ll. 45–61.
It would have been obvious to use silica gel as the desiccant material of Rault because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rault et al., EP 2,394,926 A1 in view of Biesecker Longacre et al., US 2018/0099797 A1 and in further view of Dahlgren, US 6,143,058.
Regarding claim 12, Rault teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Rault differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to a ratio of water vapor release rate toward an outside of the receptacle to a water vapor adsorption rate from outside the receptacle being higher than 2.
But Biesecker Longacre teaches a container for humidity control comprising a moisture permeable sealing membrane having a water vapor transmission rate of about 10 g water/100 in2.day (about 155 g/m2.day), with this rate providing good results. Id. Also, Dahlgren teaches an adsorbent material for adsorbing moisture where the adsorbent material has a rate of water vapor adsorption of about 30 g/200 min (with the adsorption rate tapering off after achieving 30 g). See Dahlgren Fig. 5, col. 17, ll. 21–31. It would have been obvious to use the membrane of Biesecker Longacre as the moisture permeable membrane 60 of Rault to provide a membrane with a moisture transfer rate offering good results. It also would have been obvious to use the adsorbent material of Dahlgren as the desiccant material of Rault to provide a desiccant material with a relatively high adsorption rate.
With this modification, the membrane is capable of releasing 155 g of water per day and the adsorbent is capable of adsorbing 30 g of water per day, resulting in a ratio of water release rate to water adsorption rate of around 5.16, which is within the claimed range of higher than 2.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rault et al., EP 2,394,926 A1 in view of Shen, US 2020/0298203 A1.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Rault teaches that the chamber of the receptacle is filled with an active substance (desiccant material, [0051]).
Rault differs from claims 13 and 20 because it is silent as to the desiccant material being in liquid or gel form with the active substance being selected from the group consisting of a saturated aqueous salt solution and a glycerol-water mixture, as claimed.
But Shen teaches a humidity control article comprising a substrate 11 that is coated with a humidity control layer 12 made of a humidity control composition (interpreted as a liquid) comprising a mixture of glycerol and water. See Shen Fig. 1, [0022]–[0025]. The humidity control article is beneficial because it is relatively environmentally friendly. Id. at [0005].
It would have been obvious to use the humidity control article of Shen as the desiccant material of Rault to provide a desiccant material that is relatively environmentally friendly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is allowable over Rault because the body portion (7) does not comprise a lip extending from the side wall beyond the transverse flange (upper end 70 of skirt 7), with the guiding surface (the surface formed at the opening at the top of skirt 7) being formed by an inner surface of the lip which is slanted inwardly from the transverse flange, as claimed. Instead, the guiding surface is formed at the opening at the top of skirt 7 instead of by a lip extending from the sidewall.
Claim 6 is allowable over Rault because the reference does not teach the body portion (7) comprising a lip extending from the sidewall beyond the transverse flange, with the lip being configured to be crimped around a periphery of the at least one cap portion (1) so as to maintain the at least one cap portion (1) in its sealing position, with its transverse edge in abutment against the transverse flange of the body portion (7) and its sealing skirt pressed against the inner surface of the side wall of the body portion (7). While Fig. 6 appears to illustrate a crimp at the bottom of cap portion (1), this is different from claim 6, which requires the body portion (7) to comprise a lip that is configured to be crimped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lebon et al., US 12,240,669 B2 (receptacle for holding active substance); Solomon, US 10,279,966 B1 (humidity-stabilizing device); Neff, US 7,892,327 B2 (portable humidifying device); Drummond et al., US 2005/0173044 A1 (desiccant container).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Rault is an “X” reference listed on the search report filed July 03, 2024. It is in the record as the 23-page Foreign Reference filed July 03, 2024.
