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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regards as the invention. Claim 1 is drawn to an adhesive and attempts to define the adhesive by its functionality, stating that the adhesive is “configured to be adhered to a resin adherend comprising a vapor release port in order to seal the vapor release port, wherein adhesive strength reduces by heat of vapor released from the vapor release port, and peeling occurs to release vapor by pressure of vapor.” These limitations do not clearly define the adhesive such that one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. More specifically, this claim attempts to define an adhesive almost solely by its ability to releasably adhere to a particular adherend and release when heated. This feature is highly dependent on the amount of adhesive applied, physical properties and dimensions of the resin adherend, and the amount of water and steam present during heating, and other factors. Therefore the claims as recited do not adequately define a particular adhesive in such a way that the claims are clear and definite in scope. For example, an adhesive having a specific formulation may achieve the claimed function when applied to one type of container, while failing to achieve the claimed function when applied to a different type of container, even though the adhesive itself is identical. As another example, a particular adhesive formulation may achieve the claimed function for a product with a certain threshold of steam which creates a large positive pressure, while the same identical adhesive may fail to achieve the claimed invention if a smaller amount of steam is present that does not increase pressure to the same extent. For examination purposes, any adhesive which has a strength that is lowered by heat and is releasably attached to a vent hole of a container will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the vapor release port is resealable after vapor release, and no external force is required for resealing.” This claim attempts to describe an adhesive solely by its functionality relative to a vapor release port, which does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim. An identical adhesive could reseal one type of container with no applied pressure while requiring additional external pressure to reseal another type of container. Since one particular adhesive could both meet the claim and fail to meet the claim depending on external factors, the claim fails to clearly and definitely describe the adhesive.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikami (JP 3049451), as evidenced by Kawahara (JP H09-251273).
Mikami teaches a heat-sensitive adhesive configured to be adhered on a food container in such a way that a vent opening in the food container is sealed, wherein the adhesiveness of the adhesive is lowered when heated to a particular temperature, allowing for steam to escape the food container via the vent opening (See Figs. 4 and 5; [0003]-[0005]; [0007]; [0011]). The heat-sensitive adhesive, food container, vent opening, and steam read on the instantly claimed adhesive with a pressure regulation function, resin adherend, vapor release port, and vapor, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Mikami teaches the same adhesive formulation having the same functionality as the instantly claimed adhesive. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would reasonably expect the adhesive to possess the same properties, such as an ability to reseal the container after heating as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mikami incorporates the teachings of Kawahara by reference, stating that the adhesives used in the present invention are those taught by Kawahara (See [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara teaches an easily removable heat-sensitive adhesive comprising: a pressure sensitive adhesive and linear aliphatic C16-C22 methacrylate (See [0010]-[0017]; [0037]), which read on the instantly claimed pressure sensitive adhesive and side chain crystalline polymer comprising (meth)acrylate having a straight-chain alkyl group with a carbon number of 12 to 30, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara teaches that a reduction in adhesiveness occurs at a temperature at or above a melt transition temperature of the side chain crystalline polymer as claimed (See [0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the adhesive of Mikami is coated on a label (14) in the form of a sheet (See Figs. 4 and 5 and their descriptions). The label on which the adhesive is coated in Mikami reads on the base having a film shape on which the adhesive is laminated in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights