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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 12/15/2025. The drawing objections is withdrawn. Claims 22, 27 and 30-32 are cancelled. Claim 33 is new. Claims 21, 28 and 33 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim 33 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/2025. Further, claim 33 is not sufficiently described in the specification in order for the Examiner to understand which species it corresponds to.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the published application does not contain any mention of a “first and second lid geometry”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein in the first orientation the lid is engaged with a lip of the container according to a first lid geometry, wherein in the second orientation the lid is engaged with the lip of the container according to a second lid geometry” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings include photographs, which are both
not the only practicable medium for illustration of the invention, but are also of insufficient
clarity to actually illustrate the invention. For example, figures 1-9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 6. The applicant is directed to consult the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 608.02, and more specifically, 37 CFR 1.84, Standards for Drawings, section (b) (1), as quoted below: (b) Photographs (1) Black and white, Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo
imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. In this case, the examiner is requiring illustration by drawings in lieu of photographs or photograph/drawing combinations.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 28 are 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.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant has added the limitation “wherein in the first orientation the lid is engaged with a lip of the container according to a first lid geometry, wherein in the second orientation the lid is engaged with the lip of the container according to a second lid geometry”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Regarding claim 28, Applicant has added the limitation “wherein the second lid geometry comprises a plurality of protrusions”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be 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 21 and 28 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 21 recite “wherein in the first orientation the lid is engaged with a lip of the container according to a first lid geometry, wherein in the second orientation the lid is engaged with the lip of the container according to a second lid geometry”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the lid is engaged to the lip of the container according to the first and second lid geometries. Clarity is advised.
Claim 28 recite “wherein the second lid geometry comprises a plurality of protrusions”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the second lid geometry comprises a plurality of protrusions. Clarity is advised.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGonigle (US 4574174 A, hereinafter McGonigle).
Regarding claim 21, McGonigle teaches a containment system for storage and transportation of food (dish 34, figure 1), the system comprising: a lid (lid 12) connecting to a container (dish 34) in at least a first (figure 2) and second orientation (figure 6), wherein in the first orientation (figure 2) the lid (lid 12) is engaged with a lip (lip 18) of the container (dish 34) according to a first lid geometry (figure 2), such that an airtight seal of a cavity within the container is formed (foil 14 crimped sealed around sides 16 to outstanding lip 18 of lid 12, col 3 lines 46-47); and wherein in the second orientation (figure 6) the lid (lid 12) is engaged with the lip (lip 18) of the container (dish 34) according to a second lid geometry (figure 6), wherein the second lid geometry (figure 6) exposes one or more openings (vent holes 26/28) of the lid (lid 12) forming a partial seal of the cavity and venting the cavity by way of the one or more openings of the lid (tabs 30 and 32 are removed to expose vent holes 26 and 28, as shown on figure 5), wherein the second orientation (figure 6) is established by inverting the position of the lid (lid 12) in the first orientation (inverting lid 12 from figure 2 to figure 6).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonigle (US 4574174 A) in view of Dais et al (US 20050082305 A1, hereinafter Dais).
Regarding claim 28, Rider teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the second lid geometry comprises a plurality of protrusions, wherein when the lid is in the second configuration, the plurality of protrusions make contact with the container, wherein the space between a first protrusion and a second protrusion forms a vent.
However, Dais teaches wherein the second lid geometry (lid 104 inverted, figures 7C and 10B) comprises a plurality of protrusions (hemispherical domes 144, paragraph 0054), wherein when the lid (lid 104) is in the second configuration (vent to container 100, paragraph 0054), the plurality of protrusions (hemispherical domes 144, paragraph 0054) make contact with the container (lid 104 along with domes 144 making contact with the container, as shown on figures 9A-9B), wherein the space between a first protrusion (first hemispherical domes 144, figure 10B) and a second protrusion (second hemispherical domes 144, figure 10B) forms a vent (vent regions comprising a plurality of substantially hemispherical domes 144, paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system in the teachings of McGonigle to include wherein the second lid geometry comprises a plurality of protrusions, wherein when the lid is in the second configuration, the plurality of protrusions make contact with the container, wherein the space between a first protrusion and a second protrusion forms a vent in view of the teachings of Dais in order to yield the predictable results of providing sealing and venting of the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763