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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/14/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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 1,4-5,7-8,10-11 and 14-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tabbed sealing member" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tabbed sealing member” so it is unclear what applicant is referring to since applicant has taken out “tabbed” in line 1. For purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “the sealing member”. Claims 4-5,7-8 and 10, which depend on claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tabbed sealing member" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has not claimed any “tabbed sealing member” so it is unclear what applicant is referring to since applicant has taken out “tabbed” in line 1. For purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “the sealing member”. Claims 14-19, which depend on claim 11, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5,10-11,14-15 and 19-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranganathan (US 8541081 B1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, Ranganathan teaches a sealing member for sealing to a rim surrounding a container opening, the sealing member comprising (fig.1 shows lidding 30 for sealing rim of package 10 as seen in fig.1):
a multi-layer laminate including an upper laminate portion at least partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (fig.3 shows multi-layer lidding 30 with upper laminate portion 42+26 and lower laminate portion 32 that are bonded together),
the lower laminate portion and including at least a sealant layer for bonding to the container rim, the sealant layer comprising polyethylene terephthalate, (fig.3 shows the lower portion 32 comprising first layer 38 bonded to container rim selected from polyethylene terephthalate-claim 1),
the upper laminate portion including a support layer and a polymer layer, the support layer and the polymer layer each comprising polyethylene terephthalate(fig.3 support layer 44 which comprises polyethylene terephthalate, claim 6, and second layer 29 that comprises a polymeric oxygen barrier i.e. a polymer layer), and
the sealing member being free of a metal foil layer (fig.1-3 the lidding 30 does not include metal foil).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the upper laminate portion includes a print layer (fig.3 shows the print layer 48).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the print later is a tab layer (fig.3 shows the print layer 48 is a tab layer; applicant has not defined “tab” yet)
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the sealant layer is positioned at an outer periphery of the sealing member such that it is in registration with the rim of the container when installed (fig.1-3 the layer 38 is positioned at the outer periphery of the lidding 30 is capable of registering with the rim of the container).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on 112 issue identified above, Ranganathan teaches a sealing member for sealing to a rim surrounding a container opening, the sealing member comprising (fig.1 shows lidding 30 for sealing rim of package 10 as seen in fig.1):
a multi-layer laminate including an upper laminate portion at least partially bonded to a lower laminate portion (fig.3 shows multi-layer lidding 30 with upper laminate portion 42+26 and lower laminate portion 32 that are bonded together),
the lower laminate portion including at least a sealant layer for bonding to the container rim, the sealant layer comprising polyester (fig.3 shows the lower portion 32 comprising first layer 38 bonded to container rim selected from polyethylene terephthalate-claim 1 which is a type of polyester )
the upper laminate including a support layer comprising polyester (fig.3 support layer 44 which comprises polyethylene terephthalate, claim 6, which is a type of polyester); and
the sealing member being free of a metal foil layer (fig.3 lidding 30 is free of metal foil layer).
Regarding claim 14, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the upper laminate portion includes a print layer (fig.3 shows the print layer 48).
Regarding claim 15, the references as applied to claim 14 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the print later is a tab layer (fig.3 shows the print layer 48 is a tab layer; applicant has not defined “tab” yet)
Regarding claim 19, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan further teaches wherein the sealant layer is positioned at an outer periphery of the sealing member such that it is in registration with the rim of the container when installed (fig.1-3 the layer 38 is positioned at the outer periphery of the lidding 30 is capable of registering with the rim of the container).
Regarding claim 20, Ranganathan teaches a laminate for forming a sealing member, the laminate comprising (fig.1 shows lidding 30 for sealing rim of package 10 as seen in fig.1):
an upper laminate portion including a support layer comprising polyester (fig.3 shows lidding 30 with upper laminate portion 42+26 and lower laminate portion 32 that are bonded together); and
a lower laminate portion including a sealant layer for bonding to a container rim when installed on a container, the sealant layer comprising polyester, and (fig.3 shows the lower portion 32 comprising first layer 38 for bonding to container rim selected from polyethylene terephthalate-claim 1 which is a type of polyester),
the upper laminate portion at least partially bonded to a lower laminate portion, the laminate being free of a metal foil layer (fig.3 shows multi-layer lidding 30 with upper laminate portion 42+26 and lower laminate portion 32 that are bonded together and the lidding 30 is free of metal foil).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US8541081B1) and further in view of Gillespie (US20170158404A1).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan does not teach wherein polymer layer comprises an amorphous polyethylene terephthalate.
Gillespie does teach wherein polymer layer comprises an amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (Gillespie teaches a multi-layer film which can be made from APET as seen in figures 4-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene layer disclosed by Ranganathan by adding the teaching of APET as disclosed by Gillespie in order to promote good caulkability (low elastic modulus) to seal around contamination. “Suitable PET containers used for sealing would include, but not limited to amorphous PET (APET), crystalline PET (CPET), glycol-modified PET (PETG), and recycled PET (RPET) (100% post-consumer). The multi-layer film may be sealed to the container or substrate using conduction heat-sealing equipment. The seal layer may be a thermoplastic elastomer, which promotes good caulkability (low elastic modulus) to seal around contamination. The seal layer may provide a strong temporary seal with high burst strength.” (0096, Gillespie)
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan does not teach wherein polymer layer comprises an amorphous polyethylene terephthalate.
Gillespie does teach wherein polymer layer comprises an amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (Gillespie teaches a multi-layer film which can be made from APET as seen in figures 4-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene layer disclosed by Ranganathan by adding the teaching of APET as disclosed by Gillespie in order to promote good caulkability (low elastic modulus) to seal around contamination. “Suitable PET containers used for sealing would include, but not limited to amorphous PET (APET), crystalline PET (CPET), glycol-modified PET (PETG), and recycled PET (RPET) (100% post-consumer). The multi-layer film may be sealed to the container or substrate using conduction heat-sealing equipment. The seal layer may be a thermoplastic elastomer, which promotes good caulkability (low elastic modulus) to seal around contamination. The seal layer may provide a strong temporary seal with high burst strength.” (0096, Gillespie)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US8541081B1) and further in view of Mclean (US20120285920A1).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan does teach wherein the polymer layer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (fig.3 shows layer 29 that is polyethylene layer). Ranganathan does not teach wherein the polyethylene terephthalate layer is chemically treated.
Mclean teaches wherein the polyethylene terephthalate layer is chemically treated (fig.1 shows the laminate 1b that can be chemically treated via corona treatment). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lidding disclosed by Ranganathan by adding the teaching of corona treatment as disclosed by Mclean in order to ensure bond form between the different layers is strong. “In one approach, the plastic sheet is corona treated on the surface which ends up as the lowermost surface in the product, this treatment taking place upstream of the laminating station. This is done in order to ensure that the bond formed to the polymeric adhesive is sufficiently strong.” (0044, Mclean)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US8541081B1) further in view of Francklow (US20230088010A1) and Mclean (US20120285920A1).
Regarding claim 17, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan does not teach wherein the lower laminate portion further includes a second polymer layer the second polymer layer comprising a chemically treated polyethylene terephthalate.
Francklow does teach wherein the lower laminate portion further includes a second polymer layer (fig.1 shows two 3a layers that are polyethylene layers which is a common polymer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lidding disclosed by Ranganathan by adding the teaching of multiple polyethylene layers as disclosed by Francklow in order to make the lidding layers more stronger since there will be more polymer layer to take off. “The desired strength in this case would be for the seal to be strong enough to resist forces applied incidentally during subsequent processing, storage or transport, but not so strong that a consumer is unable to easily peel the lidding film from the tray when it is desired to access the packaged product.” (0036, Francklow) Furthermore, that desired strength will depend on the layer that are applied.
Ranganathan -Francklow as modified right above do not teach the chemical treated polyethylene terephthalate.
Mclean teaches wherein the polyethylene terephthalate layer is chemically treated (fig.1 shows the laminate 1b that can be chemically treated via corona treatment). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lidding disclosed by Ranganathan -Francklow by adding the teaching of corona treatment as disclosed by Mclean in order to ensure bond form between the different layers is strong. “In one approach, the plastic sheet is corona treated on the surface which ends up as the lowermost surface in the product, this treatment taking place upstream of the laminating station. This is done in order to ensure that the bond formed to the polymeric adhesive is sufficiently strong.” (0044, Mclean)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan (US8541081B1) further in view of Chang (US9120289B2).
Regarding claim 18, the references as applied to claim 11 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Ranganathan does not teach wherein the support layer in the upper laminate portion is a transparent polyester terephthalate film.
Chang teaches wherein the support layer in the upper laminate portion is a transparent polyester terephthalate film (fig.1B shows top layer 122 which is a transparent polyethylene terephthalate layer (PET layer)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyester layer disclosed by Ranganathan by adding the teaching of transparent polyethylene terephthalate layer as disclosed by Chang in order to allow the user to see under seal layer and possibly the container
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant did not make any specific arguments against other 103 rejections. Double Patenting rejection is maintained see previous rejection and below until a TD is filed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,4-5,7-8,10-11,14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,269,659. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, 659’ (claim 1,2) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, 659’ (claim 4) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, 659’ (claim 5) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, 659’ (claim 7) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, 659’ (claim 8) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, 659’ (claim 10) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, 659’ (claim 11,12) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, 659’ (claim 14) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, 659’ (claim 15) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, 659’ (claim 16) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, 659’ (claim 17) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, 659’ (claim 18) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, 659’ (claim 19) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, 659’ (claim 20+21) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights