DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Claims 15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2-9 depend, it is not clear if all of the sealing layer remains attached to the support layer, or only a portion thereof. Examiner notes the sealing layer is identified as element (44) in the Specification (see para. [0035]). Element 44 points to the underside of support layer (40) in Figure 3 at a location remote from the point of contact with container brim (18). Further it is noted that Figure 6 shows the seal layer (44) comprising a continuous laminate with support layer (40). Accordingly, as phrased, claim reads such that the entire seal layer remains attached to the support layer (40), despite the Figures showing locations of the support layer which do not come into contact with the container brim. Examiner cautions Applicant against amending the claims with subject matter not supported by the written disclosure or drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,498,018 (Seiferth).
Regarding claim 10, Seiferth teaches a closure configured to couple to a container to close selectively an open mouth of the container, the closure comprising:
a closure top wall (25),
a closure sidewall (28) coupled to the closure top wall and extending downwardly from the closure top wall to engage the container to mount the closure to the container, and
a container-sealing flange (26) coupled to an upper end of the closure sidewall and extending radially outward away from the closure top wall to mount with the container brim of the container and close the open mouth (see Figure 3),
wherein the container-sealing flange includes a support layer (26) coupled to the closure sidewall and a seal ring (33) coupled to a lower surface of the support layer to engage with an upper surface of the container brim and provide a sealing layer therebetween (33 is taught to be disposed about the entire periphery of 16 and comprises an adhesive to hermetically seal flanges 17 and 16; see col. 5, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 11, the closure sidewall is coupled to a radially outer edge of the closure top wall and a radially inner edge of the container sealing flange, and the closure sidewall includes an inner sidewall coupled to the radially outer edge of the closure top wall, an outer sidewall coupled to the support layer and spaced radially outward from the inner sidewall, and a sidewall link interconnecting a lower end of the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall (see annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. Claims 10, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2,340,824 (Long).
Regarding claim 10, Long teaches a closure configured to couple to a container to close selectively an open mouth of the container, the closure comprising:
a closure top wall (14),
a closure sidewall (defined by walls comprising plug portion 13) coupled to the closure top wall and extending downwardly from the closure top wall to engage the container to mount the closure to the container, and
a container-sealing flange (15) coupled to an upper end of the closure sidewall and extending radially outward away from the closure top wall to mount with the container brim of the container and close the open mouth (see Figure 7),
wherein the container-sealing flange includes a support layer (15) coupled to the closure sidewall and a seal ring (“heat-sensitive adhesive lacquer”; see pg. 6, lines 17-18) coupled to a lower surface of the support layer to engage with an upper surface of the container brim and provide a sealing layer therebetween (see pg. 6, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 11, the closure sidewall is coupled to a radially outer edge of the closure top wall and a radially inner edge of the container sealing flange, and the closure sidewall includes an inner sidewall (radially inner wall of plug 17) coupled to the radially outer edge of the closure top wall, an outer sidewall (17) coupled to the support layer and spaced radially outward from the inner sidewall, and a sidewall link (19) interconnecting a lower end of the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall (see Figure 7)
Regarding claim 14, the container sidewall is formed to include a first annular retainer ring (9) and the outer sidewall is formed to include a second annular retainer ring (18) configured to engage the second annular retainer ring when the closure is installed on the container to block removal of the closure from the container (pg. 6, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 16, the seal ring is heated to bond to the container brim in a sealed, unopened state to block passage of effluents into a container interior in the unopened state of the container (Examiner notes claim comprises a process step within the scope of an apparatus claim, and such is only treated to the degree it materially affects the final product; the reference teaches a heat-sensitive adhesive lacquer” and thus the same final product as that claimed by Applicant).
It has been held that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,750,827 (Wick) in view of US 3,946,872 (Sturm).
Regarding claim 1, Wick teaches a package comprising:
a container including a container brim (4), a container floor (5) spaced apart from the container brim, and a container sidewall (3) extending between and interconnecting the container brim and the container floor to define a container interior (2) radially inward from the container brim and the container sidewall and above the container floor, the container brim spaced radially from and surrounding a central axis of the container and coupled to an upper end of the container sidewall to extend radially outward away from the central axis (see Figure 1), and
a closure configured to couple to the container brim to close selectively an open mouth of the container defined by the container brim, the closure including a closure top wall (unlabeled; read as the central horizontal wall near 8 in annotated Figure 1 above with regard to claim 1), a closure sidewall (unlabeled; read as the vertical wall between 8 and 10 in annotated Figure 1 above with regard to claim 1) coupled to the closure top wall and extending downwardly from the closure top wall to engage the container to mount the closure to the container, and a container-sealing flange (10) coupled to an upper end of the closure sidewall and configured to mount with the container brim of the container and close the open mouth,
wherein the container-sealing flange includes a support layer (where 10 points in Figure 1) coupled to the closure sidewall and a seal layer (the plastic layer beneath 10; see col. 2, lines 32-36) bonded to a lower surface of the support layer and configured to establish: (i) a sealed, unopened state of the package in which the seal layer is sealed with an upper surface of the container brim to block effluents from entering the container interior (see heat sealing in col. 2, lines 32-36; Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
144
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wick fails to teach:
(ii) a first-use opened state in which the closure is separated from the container and the seal layer remains attached to the support layer, and
(iii) an unsealed, closed state in which the closure is reinstalled on the container and the seal layer remains attached to the support layer so that the closure and the seal layer are not discarded separately from one another and can be recycled with one another.
Sturm, analogous to multilayer heat-sealed containers formed of a metal layer (12; see col. 4, lines 52-53) and a thermoplastic bonding layer (26; see col. 5, lines 6-7), teaches
(ii) a first-use opened state in which the closure is separated from the container and the seal layer remains attached to the support layer (see 28 in Figure 3), and
(iii) an unsealed, closed state in which the closure is reinstalled on the container and the seal layer remains attached to the support layer so that the closure and the seal layer are not discarded separately from one another and can be recycled with one another (Examiner notes there is nothing preventing the lid from being reapplied and the lid assuming the same position as that of the original closed state). Sturm teaches the benefit is a smooth appearance and “free of loose scraps or tatters which would detract from the desired appearance of the rim” (see col. 5, lines 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Wick, configuring the strength of the heat seal relative to the bond strength between layers such that the heat seal portion remains on the container brim after first opening as taught by Sturm, motivated by the benefit of a smooth brim appearance free of loose scraps and tatters, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, the closure sidewall is coupled to a radially outer edge of the closure top wall and a radially inner edge of the container sealing flange (clearly seen in Wick Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, the seal layer provides a heat seal configured to bond to the container brim in the sealed (see heat sealing in Wick col. 2, lines 32-36; Figure 2), unopened state to block passage of effluents into the container interior in the sealed, unopened state of the container, and the package lacks a separate foil or film layer between the closure and the container (Wick teaches no additional foil or film layers).
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,750,827 (Wick) in view of US 3,946,872 (Sturm) as applied above to claim 2, and further in view of US 3,498,018 (Seiferth).
Regarding claim 3, Wick in view of Sturm as applied above to claim 2 fails to teach that the closure sidewall includes an inner sidewall coupled to the radially outer edge of the closure top wall, an outer sidewall coupled to the support layer and spaced radially outward from the inner sidewall, and a sidewall link interconnecting a lower end of the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Seiferth, analogous to closures with bonding along a peripheral rim, teaches it is known to form the lid with an inner sidewall coupled to the radially outer edge of the closure top wall, an outer sidewall coupled to the support layer and spaced radially outward from the inner sidewall, and a sidewall link interconnecting a lower end of the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall. Such formations are known in the art to provide rigidity and/or a place to prevent lateral sliding of stacked containers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Wick in view of Sturm, providing an inner sidewall coupled to the radially outer edge of the closure top wall, an outer sidewall coupled to the support layer and spaced radially outward from the inner sidewall, and a sidewall link interconnecting a lower end of the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall as taught by Seiferth, motivated by the benefit of providing rigidity and/or a place to prevent lateral sliding of stacked containers, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Claims 12 and 13 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.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, from which claims 5-8 depend, neither Seiferth nor Long teaches that the inner sidewall is formed to include a first set of reinforcement ribs spaced circumferentially apart from one another around the closure sidewall.
Regarding claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, Wick in view of Sturm fails to teach the inner sidewall is formed to include a first set of reinforcement ribs spaced circumferentially apart from one another around the closure sidewall, and the outer sidewall is formed to include a second set of reinforcement ribs spaced circumferentially apart from one another around the closure sidewall.
No motivation could be found to modify the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights