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 .
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) 1-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lachmann (US20190352064).
1. Lachmann teaches a disposable beverage container lid film system comprising a recyclable plastic film (Fig. 1 at 102) removably coupled to a lid.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the recyclable plastic film (102) is transparent and comprises an engageable tab.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the recyclable plastic film is temporarily adhered to the lid (before removed by user).
4. The system of claim 3, wherein an adhesive material temporarily adheres the lid to the recyclable plastic film (paragraph 0047).
5. The system of claim 4, wherein a non-adhesive material temporarily adheres the lid to the recyclable plastic film (cover may be attached without adhesive).
6. The system of claim 4, wherein the recyclable plastic film is temporarily adhered to the lid. Regarding the term “via heating”, such limitation is being treated as the product-by-process claim, and the determination of patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
7. The system of claim 4, wherein the recyclable plastic film is an isolator (Fig. 4).
8. The system of claim 4, wherein the recyclable plastic film completely covers the lid blocking the lid from contacting the environment (Fig. 4).
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the recyclable plastic film effectively prevents germ transfer to the lid during handling (Fig. 4).
10. The system of claim 8, wherein the recyclable plastic film effectively prevents allergen transfer to the lid during handling.
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the recyclable plastic film effectively prevents bacteria transfer to the lid during handling (Fig. 4).
12. The system of claim 8, wherein the recyclable plastic film effectively prevents virus-transfer to the lid during handling (Fig. 4).
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the recyclable plastic film comprises functional indicia (paragraph 0040).
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the beverage container is a cup (Fig. 4).
15. The system of claim 1, wherein the beverage container is not a cup (paragraph 0022).
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the beverage container is suitable for containing hot and cold beverages (Fig. 4).
17. Lachmann teaches a system comprising a recyclable plastic film removably coupled to a beverage container lid (Fig. 4), wherein the recyclable plastic film is transparent and comprises an engageable tab (Fig. 4); wherein an adhesive material (paragraph 0047) temporarily adheres the lid to the recyclable plastic film; wherein the recyclable plastic film completely covers the lid blocking the lid from contacting the environment (Fig. 4); wherein the recyclable plastic film is an isolator (Fig. 4); wherein the recyclable plastic film effectively prevents germ-transfer (Fig. 4), allergen-transfer, bacteria-transfer, and virus-transfer to the lid during handling; and wherein the recyclable plastic film comprises functional indicia (Paragraph 0040).
19. Lachmann teaches a method of use for a cup lid film system (Fig. 4), comprising the steps of coupling a recyclable plastic film to a lid (103), for maintaining cleanliness of the lid of a beverage container prior to drinking (Fig. 4); and removing the recyclable plastic film from the lid prior to drinking from the beverage container (Fig. 5).
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising the step of adhering the recyclable plastic film to the lid (paragraph 0047).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachmann.
18. The system of claim 17, further comprising set of instructions; and wherein the system is arranged as a kit (Fig. 1). Lachmann DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a set of instructions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include printed instructions since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore it would have been obvious to include printed mater based on the desired message to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736