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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 30 recites wherein the middle fold line bisects the lid disc section such that the press-in section is the substantially the same size as the fold-up section. The original specification does not describe the sizes of these sections and therefore the limitation is new matter.
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 31 and 32 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.
Claims 31 and 32 recite “at least one inwardly projecting arc-shaped bulge locking bead”. It is unclear if this is the same locking bead from claim 1 or a different bead.
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) 1, 7, 17, 29, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D' Amato (US-20080099481-A1) in view of Hoffman (US-20100012534-A1) and alternatively further in view of Van de Geijn et al. (US 5490827 A).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 17 and 29, D' Amato discloses a lid (1) for a cup (2) for beverages, the lid comprising: an annular lower lid part (6), which can be placed on an upper cup rim, and a substantially circular lid disc (5), wherein the lower lid part and the lid disc are made of paper (par. 32) and are connected in a liquid- tight manner along a rim groove (13) pointing downwards in the direction of the cup and a rim flange (11) pointing upwards in the opposite direction, said rim flange being inserted into the rim groove (Fig. 2), wherein the lower lid part is formed by two, or more separate layers of paper (par. 57), wherein the lid disc is formed of only one paper layer (par. 57), wherein a lower lid part has at least one inwardly projecting locking bead (7, 10), wherein a substantially inwardly inclined supporting rim (15) is formed substantially at the lower end of the rim groove or rim flange of the lower lid part, wherein the two or more layers extend from a bottom of the lower lid part to the rim groove (Fig. 2), wherein the paper layers can be spirally wound cut from a tube via a cross-sectional cut along a length of the elongated tube (product by process).
D' Amato fails to teach wherein the locking bead is an arc-shaped bulge.
Hoffman teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a locking bead (114) as an arc-shaped bulge (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the bead with an arc shape, in order to hook under a projection and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component to another known shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
D' Amato fails to specifically teach that the paper is spirally wound and cut.
Van de Geijn teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a closure with two or more spirally wound layers (col. 3, lines 50-60), and by using cutting/slicing (col. 11, lines 10-30, col. 12, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure to be spirally wound, in order to provide column strength to the lid, and since such a modification would be the use of a known technique for manufacturing paper lids.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the modified lid of D' Amato teaches the at least one inwardly projecting arc-shaped bulge locking bead being formed by a groove (Hoffman, 116) on an outer side of the lower lid part (Hoffman, an outer side of inner portion 52), wherein the at least one inwardly projecting arc-shaped bulge locking bead is connected to the lower lid part at two locations (Hoffman, the circumference includes multiple locations)
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 17-18 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahlecker (US-20160083151-A1) in view of D' Amato (US-20080099481-A1), Hoffman (US-20100012534-A1) and Van de Geijn et al. (US 5490827 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 17, Stahlecker discloses a lid (20) for a cup (10) for beverages, the lid comprising: an annular lower lid part (42), which can be placed on an upper cup rim (12), and a substantially circular lid disc (30), wherein the lower lid part and the lid disc are made of a paper and are connected in a liquid-tight manner (par. 13) along a rim groove (at 44, 45) pointing downwards in the direction of the cup and a rim flange (34) pointing upwards in the opposite direction, and said rim flange being inserted into the rim groove (Fig. 1c), wherein the lower lid part has at least one inwardly projecting locking bead (Fig. 1c, inwardly projecting portion of 42 below 12), wherein the rim groove is formed by a downwardly open rim ring of the lid disc and the rim flange is formed by an upper end portion of the lower lid part (Fig. 11c), wherein the lower lid part is formed by two, three or more layers of paper (par. 62), wherein the lid disc is formed of only one paper layer (Fig. 1c), wherein the lid disc has a substantially liquid-tight coating on its lower side and/or upper side (par. 5), wherein the rim groove and rim flange are glued together (par. 13), wherein a substantially inward inclined supporting rim (at 41) is formed substantially at the lower end of the groove or rim flange of the lower lid part, and wherein the thickness of the paper layers is different than the lid disc (Fig. 1c), wherein the layers are wound (par. 5) and wherein the lower lid part can be made from an elongated cutting tube via a cross-sectional cut along a length of the elongated tube (product by process).
Stahlecker fails to teach separate paper layers, and specifically wherein the paper is spirally wound and cut, and wherein the locking bead is an arc-shaped bulge.
D' Amato teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid (1) for a cup (2) for beverages, the lid comprising two, or more separate layers of paper (par. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with separate layers, in order to adjust the strength of the lid and since such a modification would be the use of a known technique on a known device to achieve a predictable result.
Hoffman teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a locking bead (114) in the shape of an arc-shaped bulge (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with the arc shaped bulge, in order to secure the lid to containers and since such a modification would be a simple substitution of known lid connection structures.
Van de Geijn teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a closure with two or more spirally wound layers (col. 3, lines 50-60), and by using cutting/slicing (col. 11, lines 10-30, col. 12, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure to be spirally wound, in order to provide column strength to the lid, and since such a modification would be the use of a known technique for manufacturing paper lids.
Regarding claim 18, Stahlecker teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture paper with different thicknesses (par. 13), but fails to specifically teach wherein each layer is a different thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured layers with different thicknesses in order to change the strength of the layers and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the modified lid of Stahlecker teaches the at least one inwardly projecting arc-shaped bulge locking bead being formed by a groove (Hoffman, 116) on an outer side of the lower lid part (Hoffman, an outer side of inner portion 52), wherein the at least one inwardly projecting arc-shaped bulge locking bead is connected to the lower lid part at two locations (Hoffman, the circumference includes multiple locations)
Claim(s) 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutz (US-D229038-S) in view of Jones (US-20070131752-A1).
Schutz discloses A lid disc of a lid (Figs. 1 and 2, labeled below by examiner) for closing a cup, the lid disc comprising: a lid disc section (a) that is configured to provide a drinking opening and is bounded by an at least partially circumferential line (b, c) and an end fold line (d), the line including a front line section (b) and two side line sections (c) extending from the front line section in a direction of the end fold line (Fig. 2), the lid disc section including: a press-in section (e); a fold-up section (f); and a further singular middle fold line (g) extending substantially directly between the side line sections, which ends are connected to the front line section, wherein the middle fold line runs parallel to the end fold line (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schutz fails to teach wherein the line is a tear line and wherein the middle fold line bisects the lid disc section such that the press-in section is the substantially the same size as the fold-up section.
Jones teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container opening with fold and tear lines (par. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured lid with tear lines, so that the lid could be initially closed before first use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the fold line to bisect the lid disc sections, in order to adjust the use of the lid and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 20, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahlecker, Van de Geijn, Hoffman and D' Amato in view of Kim (US-20100176130).
The modified lid of Stahlecker teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and a drinking straw insertion hole (31), but fails to teach the opening being formed by one or more cut lines at least partially passing through the lid disc, wherein a lid disc section closing the drinking opening is bounded by an at least partially circumferential tear line and an end fold line, wherein the tear line comprises a front line section facing the rim groove and two side line sections extending from the front line section in the direction of the end fold line, wherein the front line section is convexly curved and the two side line sections extend substantially straight , the lid disc section having a further middle fold line extending substantially between ends of the side line sections, which ends are connected to the front line section, with the middle fold line running substantially parallel to the end fold line, wherein the front line section and the middle fold line define a press-in section of the lid disc section and the middle fold line, the side line sections and the end fold line define a fold-up section of the lid disc section.
Kim teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid disc section that is configured to provide a drinking opening (210) and is bounded by an at least partially circumferential tear line and an end fold line (par. 32), the lid disc section including: a press-in section; and a fold up section (Figs. 7-1 through 7-7), the opening being formed by one or more cut lines at least partially passing through the lid disc (par. 32), wherein a lid disc section closing the drinking opening is bounded by an at least partially circumferential tear line and an end fold line (Fig. 7-6), wherein the tear line comprises a front line section facing the rim groove and two side line sections extending from the front line section in the direction of the end fold line (Fig. 7-1), wherein the front line section is convexly curved and the two side line sections extend substantially straight (Fig. 7-1), the lid disc section having a further middle fold line (220) extending substantially between ends of the side line sections, which ends are connected to the front line section (Fig. 7-4), with the middle fold line running substantially parallel to the end fold line (Fig. 7-5), wherein the front line section and the middle fold line define a press-in section of the lid disc section and the middle fold line, the side line sections and the end fold line define a fold-up section of the lid disc section (par. 32), and a lower lid part (3) with at least one inwardly projecting locking bead (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with the drink opening structure taught by Kim, in order to protect the contents under the lid and such a modification would be the use of a known drink opening top achieve a predictable result.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahlecker, Van de Geijn, D' Amato, Hoffman and Kim in view of Boller (US-5335812-A).
Stahlecker fails to teach a drink opening and a straw opening.
Boller teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a drink opening and a straw opening (col. 1, lines 44-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with two opening, in order to increase the options for a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regrading applicant’s argument the original disclosure provides support for the fold line bisecting the lid disc section, it is noted that the specification does not provide any measurements for this feature and it has not been established that the drawings are to scale. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the modifications above are not possible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the modified rejection above.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733