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 Species 1 (Figures 1-4) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicates that claims 1-15 correspond to elected species 1. Therefore, claims 16-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-15 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 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a central dispensing aperture”, in line 22, since it is unclear if the central dispensing aperture is the same as the dispensing aperture defined in line 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the central dispensing aperture as the dispensing aperture previously defined in the claim.
Claim 1 is further rendered indefinite by the limitation “a restricted orifice”, in line 24, since it is unclear if the restricted orifice is the same as the restricted orifice defined in line 3 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the restricted orifice as the restricted orifice previously defined in the claim.
Claim 4 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a container rim”, in line 3, since it is unclear if the container rim is the same as the container rim defined in line 4 of claim 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “a container rim” as “the container rim”.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a container rim”, in line 2, since it is unclear if the container rim is the same as the container rim defined in line 4 of claim 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “a container rim” as “the container rim”.
Claim 6 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a container rim”, in line 2, since it is unclear if the container rim is the same as the container rim defined in line 4 of claim 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “a container rim” as “the container rim”.
Claim 7 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “a container”, in line 2, since it is unclear if the container is the same as the container defined in line 4 of claim 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “a container” as “the container”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the multi-layer construction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 12 should depend from claim 2 which defines a multi-layer construction.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sheet material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 13 should depend from claim 12 which defines sheet material.
Claim 15 is rendered indefinite by the limitation “an integrated dispensing aperture”, in line 15, since it is unclear if the integrated dispensing aperture is the same as the dispensing aperture defined in line 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the integrated dispensing aperture as the dispensing aperture previously defined in the claim.
Claim 15 is further rendered indefinite by the limitation “a central dispensing aperture”, in line 20, since it is unclear if the central dispensing aperture is the same as the dispensing aperture defined in line 1 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the central dispensing aperture as the dispensing aperture previously defined in the claim.
Claim 15 is further rendered indefinite by the limitation “a restricted orifice”, in line 22, since it is unclear if the restricted orifice is the same as the restricted orifice defined in line 3 or a different structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the restricted orifice as the restricted orifice previously defined in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arts et al. (US 2018/0305102).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Arts discloses an article (at 1 in Fig. 2) comprising an integrated liner seal (at 6 in Fig. 2), dispensing aperture (at 20 in Fig. 2) and spout (opening below 52 in Fig. 7) for sealing and controlled dispensing of a product through a restricted orifice (at 56 in Fig. 6) of the liner seal that is smaller than an opening (upper opening of 2 in Fig. 2) provided by a rim (at 18 in Fig. 2) of a container (at 2 in Fig. 2), the article comprising: the liner seal (6) having a basewall (at 24 in Fig. 2) with a basewall perimeter (perimeter of 24, near 44 in Fig. 2) configured to seal the rim surrounding the opening the container to prevent spillage and contamination of the product held in the container, the basewall having a central portion (portion of the liner between opposing slits 56 in Fig. 5) disposed between opposing left and right side portions (portions of the seal beneath 50A and 50B in Figs. 4-5), and an opposing pair of tear lines (at 56) that define the boundaries between each respective one of the side portions and the central portion, the liner seal having a pair of spaced-apart tabs (50A, 50B) each having a first end integral with the central portion and extending outwardly toward the perimeter from an opposing one of the tear lines, each of the tabs having a second end detached from and lying above a respective one of the opposing side portions of the basewall (as shown in Figs. 4-5), wherein the tabs are arranged relative to the tear lines such that pulling the tabs (as shown in Figs. 6-7) upwardly away from the side portions detaches a first end section of the basewall perimeter from the rim and tears the central portion from the side portions (as shown in Fig. 7) along the opposing tear lines to form a detached central portion (at 52 in Fig. 7) and tabs from the basewall, leaving a central dispensing aperture (aperture below 52 in Fig. 7) in the liner and a remaining second end section of the basewall perimeter attached to the rim (bottom portion in Fig. 7), wherein the central dispensing aperture of the liner comprises a restricted orifice (below 52 in Fig. 5) that is smaller than the opening of the container, and wherein the tabs are arranged relative to the tear lines such that rotating and folding the tabs along the tear lines (if 50A/50B in Fig. 7 are folded downward on the opposing side of 52) to form forms respective opposing sidewalls (surfaces of 50A and 50B) along the detached central portion, the detached central portion and opposing sidewalls forming the dispensing spout capable of controlled dispensing of a product from the central dispensing aperture of the liner, and the dispensing spout is capable of allowing a product to flow along a channel comprising the detached central portion and between the opposing sidewalls in a controlled manner from the spout.
Regarding claim 2, Arts discloses the basewall is an integral disc-shaped body of multi-layer construction (as shown in Fig. 5) having opposing top and bottom surfaces (at 34 and 38 in Fig. 5) with a transverse thickness defined between the top and bottom surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, Arts discloses the multilayer basewall includes a metal (foil) layer and an inductive heat sealant (polypropylene) on the bottom surface for inductive heat sealing to the container rim.
Regarding claim 5, Arts discloses basewall includes a heat sealant on the bottom surface for convection heat sealing to a container rim (polypropylene).
Regarding claim 6, Arts discloses the liner seal is configured to fit between the container rim and a closure cap (at 3).
Regarding claim 7, Arts discloses the liner seal comprises a lidding (at 34) for sealing an opening of a container.
Regarding claim 8, Arts discloses the multi-layer construction of the basewall includes a polymer material layer (polypropylene).
Regarding claim 9, Arts discloses a top layer of the multi-layer construction of the basewall includes the tabs, detached from the side portions, and a central area attached to the central portion (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Arts discloses the multi-layer construction of the basewall includes: a top polymer layer that forms the tabs and the central portion, a middle layer of metal for inductive heating, and a bottom layer of an inductive heat sealant.
Regarding claim 12, Arts discloses the liner seal is formed from a web of sheet material of the multi-layer construction.. Furthermore, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Regarding claim 13, Arts discloses the sheet material includes the tear lines extending entirely or partially through the thickness of the multi-layer construction.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arts et al. (US 2018/0305102) as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Arts discloses the basewall perimeter is disc-shaped, the opposing tear lines are parallel to one another, and each of the tabs is rectangle shaped with rounded corners and extends from a respective tear line toward the basewall perimeter. Arts discloses the claimed invention except for the specific shape of the tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tabs of Arts to be any shape such as half-moon shaped in order to allow for ease of grasping. Furthermore, to modify the tabs to be half-moon shaped would entail a mere change in shape of tabs and yield only predictable results. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights