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 11/19/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “attaching, using a non-pressure sensitive adhesive, a second sealing film” renders claim 1 non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. On page 5 paragraph 31 of the Specification, the second sealing film is disclosed the be attached to the sealing part using an adhesive, leaving a portion not attached to the sealing part forming the exhaust hole. On page 6 paragraph 34 of the Specification, the exhaust hole is disclosed to be formed of a pressure-sensitive adhesive. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose the second sealing film is attached to the sealing part with a non-pressure sensitive adhesive. Therefore, the feature is considered new matter.
Claims 4-7 are dependent of claim 1 and include all the same limitations.
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 and 4-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “so that the gas passes directly from the ventilation hole through the selective exhaust hole to outside” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it appears to contradict prior disclosed features. Prior to the quoted phrase, the method discloses the step of attaching a first sealing film over the ventilation hole, where first sealing film also gas to pass through. It is unclear how the gas passes directly from the ventilation hole through the exhaust hole when the ventilation hole is covered by the first sealing film. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “so that gas passes through the ventilation hole, the first sealing film, the selective exhaust hole to outside”.
Claims 4-7 are dependent of claim 1 and include all the same limitations.
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 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Buckingham (9,657,856) in view of references Newrones et al. (7,685,793) and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034)(referred Hoffman '034).
Regarding claim 1, Buckingham disclose a method comprising the steps of:
preparing a packing container (2) whose top is open;
packing a given amount of product in the packing container (2);
mounting a sealing part (3) onto the top of the packing container (2),
wherein the sealing part (3) is configured for sealing the open top of the packing container (2);
forming a ventilation hole (5) passing through the center of the sealing part (3);
attaching a first sealing film (4) to the top of the sealing part (2), and
wherein the first sealing film (4) covers the ventilation hole (5), and
wherein gas passes through the first sealing film (4) while not passing liquid therethrough; and
attaching a second sealing film (9) to the sealing part (3),
wherein the second sealing film (9) covers the first sealing film (4),
wherein the second sealing film (9) includes a selective exhaust hole (14) that is fluidly connected to the ventilation hole (5), and
wherein gas passes through the ventilation hole (5), the first sealing film (4), the selective exhaust hole (14) to outside of the packing container (2).
(Figure 1-2 and Column 4 lines 16-27, Column 6 lines 32-39)
However, Buckingham does not disclose the second sealing film has a first adhesive applied to a first area of a side of the second sealing film, and a second sensitive adhesive applied a second area of the side of the second sealing film.
Newrones et al. disclose a sealing film (22) attached to a container (12), wherein a first adhesive (26) is applied to a first area of the sealing film (22), wherein the first area to which the first adhesive (26) is applied serves as selective exhaust hole, wherein a second adhesive (28) is applied to a second area of the sealing film (22), and wherein the first area and the second area form an entire area of the sealing film (22). (Figure 3A and Column 2 lines 23-28, 46-48, 53-56, Column 3 lines 24-28)
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 modified the selective exhaust hole of Buckingham by incorporating the pressure-sensitive adhesive as taught by Newrones et al., since column 1 lines 44-46 of Newrones et al. state such a modification would allow the sealing film to adhere to the container in order to close the selective exhaust hole.
In column 4 lines 39-44, Newrones et al. disclose the first adhesive (26) and/or the second adhesive (28) can comprise pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, Buckingham modified by Newrones et al. do not disclose the second adhesive is non-pressure sensitive adhesive.
Hoffman ‘034 disclose a ventilation system (10) comprising an adhesive layer (20), wherein suitable adhesives for the adhesive layer (20) includes pressure-sensitive and heat-activated adhesives. (Column 7 lines 33-37, 46-52)
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 second adhesive with heat-activated adhesive as taught by Hoffman ‘034, since column 7 lines 51-52 of Hoffman ‘034 states heat-activated adhesive would work equally well at coupling the second sealing film to the sealing part, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Buckingham modified by Newrones et al. and Hoffman ‘034 disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive is a silicone adhesive. (Newrones et al. – Column 4 lines 39-44)
Regarding claim 7, Buckingham modified by Newrones et al. and Hoffman ‘034 disclose the first sealing film (Buckingham 4) is a membrane having a plurality of layers (Buckingham 6, 7). (Buckingham Figure 5 and Column 4 lines 50-54)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Buckingham (9,657,856) in view of references Newrones et al. (7,685,793) and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034)(referred Hoffman '034) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of references Hoffman et al. (9,187,229)(referred Hoffman '229) and Rypstra (7,490,623).
Regarding claim 4, Buckingham modified by Newrones et al. and Hoffman ‘034 disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose second sealing film is polyethylene terephthalate film having a thickness of 10 to 25 µm.
Hoffman ‘229 disclose an arrangement comprising: a first sealing film (240); and a second sealing film (36), wherein the first sealing film (240) allows gas to pass through while not passing liquid therethrough, and wherein the second sealing film (36) is made of gas impervious polyethylene terephthalate film. (Figure 4 and Column 5 lines 18-20, Column 8 lines 27-29)
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 modified the second sealing film of Buckingham by incorporating the polyethylene terephthalate film as taught by Hoffman et al., since column 5 lines 18-20 states such a modification would ensure gas does not pass through the second sealing film.
Rypstra disclose an arrangement comprising: a first sealing film (5); and a second sealing film (6), wherein each sealing film has a thickness of 10 to 50 µm. (Figure 2 and Column 5 lines 7-11)
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 modified the second sealing film of Buckingham by incorporating the thickness as taught by Rypstra, since column 4 lines 35-38 of Rypstra states such a modification would allow for a thin arrangement of the sealing films.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Shah et al. (7,137,738) in view of references Stevens (2018/0244443), Newrones et al. (7,685,793), and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034)(referred Hoffman '034).
Regarding claim 1, Shah et al. disclose a method comprising the steps of:
forming a ventilation hole (50);
attaching a first sealing film (54),
wherein the first sealing film (54) covers the ventilation hole (50), and
wherein gas passes through the first sealing film while not passing liquid therethrough; and
attaching a second sealing film (156),
wherein the second sealing film (156) covers the first sealing film (54),
wherein the second sealing film (156) includes a selective exhaust hole (162) that is fluidly connected to the ventilation hole, and
wherein gas passes through the ventilation hole, the first sealing film (54), the selective exhaust hole (162) to the outside.
(Figure 3, 4 and Column 3 lines 49-53, Column 4 lines 25-33)
However, Shah et al. do not disclose preparing a container whose top is open, packing a given amount of product, and mounting a sealing part for sealing the open top, and do not disclose the second sealing film has a first adhesive applied to a first area of a side of the second sealing film, and a second sensitive adhesive applied a second area of the side of the second sealing film.
Stevens disclose a method comprising the steps of:
preparing a packing containers (12) whose top is open (20);
packing a given amount of product into the packing container (12);
mounting a sealing part (32) onto the top of the packing container (12),
wherein the sealing part (32) is configured for sealing the open top (20) of the packing container (12);
forming a ventilation hole (52) passing through the center of the sealing part (32); and
attaching a first sealing film (34) to the top of the sealing part (32),
wherein the first sealing film (34) covers the ventilation hole (52), and
wherein gas passes through the first sealing film (34).
(Figure 2, 6 and Page 2 paragraph 24, 25, 30)
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 modified the method of Shah et al. by incorporating the packing container and sealing part as taught by Stevens, since page 2 paragraph 23 of Stevens states such a modification would allow the container to have any desired shape and be made of any desired material.
Newrones et al. disclose a sealing film (22) attached to a container (12), wherein a first adhesive (26) is applied to a first area of the sealing film (22), wherein the first area to which the first adhesive (26) is applied serves as selective exhaust hole, wherein a second adhesive (28) is applied to a second area of the sealing film (22), and wherein the first area and the second area form an entire area of the sealing film (22). (Figure 3A and Column 2 lines 23-28, 46-48, 53-56, Column 3 lines 24-28)
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 modified the selective exhaust hole of Shah et al. by incorporating the pressure-sensitive adhesive as taught by Newrones et al., since column 1 lines 44-46 of Newrones et al. state such a modification would allow the sealing film to adhere to the container in order to close the selective exhaust hole.
In column 4 lines 39-44, Newrones et al. disclose the first adhesive (26) and/or the second adhesive (28) can comprise pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, Shah et al. modified by Stevens and Newrones et al. do not disclose the second adhesive is non-pressure sensitive adhesive.
Hoffman ‘034 disclose a ventilation system (10) comprising an adhesive layer (20), wherein suitable adhesives for the adhesive layer (20) includes pressure-sensitive and heat-activated adhesives. (Column 7 lines 33-37, 46-52)
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 second adhesive with heat-activated adhesive as taught by Hoffman ‘034, since column 7 lines 51-52 of Hoffman ‘034 states heat-activated adhesive would work equally well at coupling the second sealing film to the sealing part, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Shah et al. (7,137,738) in view of references Stevens (2018/0244443), Newrones et al. (7,685,793), and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034)(referred Hoffman '034) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Yen (10,586,965).
Regarding claim 5, Shah et al. disclose the first sealing film (54) is a membrane made of porous polymer. (Column 3 lines 62-67)
However, Shah et al. modified by Stevens, Newrones et al. and Hoffman ‘034 do not disclose the pores have a size of 0.2 to 1.5 µm.
Yen discloses a porous polymer used for food packaging, wherein the pores have a size of 0.01 to 1 µm. (Column 6 lines 58-61, Column 15 lines 62-66)
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 modified the first sealing film of Shah et al. by incorporating the pore size as taught by Yen, since such a modification would ensure that particles larger than 1 µm will not pass through first sealing film, thereby ensure only gas passes through.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on 11/19/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending in the application.
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. 102(a)(1) with reference Buckingham (9,657,856), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Buckingham (9,657,856) modified by reference Newrones et al. (7,685,793), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Buckingham (9,657,856) modified by references Newrones et al. (7,685,793) and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034).
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Stevens (2018/0244443) in view of references Shah et al. (7,137,738), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Shah et al. (7,137,738) modified by references Stevens (2018/0244443), Newrones et al. (7,685,793), and Hoffman et al. (8,636,034).
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 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 March 4, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731