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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 12/31/2025
Claims 1-5 and 29-31 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson (US 2022/0363427) in view of Tojo et al. (US 7,048,975) in view of Herlin (US 2018/0016038).
Claim 1: Andersson discloses a container 1 comprising:
a tubular body 2 defining an interior of the container, the tubular body having a top end and a bottom end (fig. 1b);
a one top sealing member 32 positioned in the interior of the container spaced away from each of the top end and the bottom end of the tubular body, the at least one top sealing member sealably engaging at least a portion of the tubular body [0072];
a rim attached to the top end of the tubular body and welded to an interior surface of the tubular body [0052];
a bottom plate 26 attached to the bottom end of the tubular body to form a closed bottom end of the container (abstract; [0025]).
Andersson disclose a container body made primarily of cellulosic fibers. While the composition of the bottom plate is not disclosed, Tojo represents evidence of a container body and bottom portion, rim 50 and lid 30 being made of pulp fibers (col. 15-16, ll. 61-67; 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base construction of Andersson to include the reinforced pulp plate of Tojo to create an eco-friendlier assembly without comprising structural integrity.
Anderson-Tojo fails to disclose a reclosable lid. Herlin teaches a reclosable lid 14 attached to the rim 15 to form a closed top end of the container 2, ([0069-0071]; fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reclosable lid material of Anderson to include the pulp fiber lid material of Sioland to ensure the safety of the consumer goods when in contact with the container walls, lids and bottoms.
Claim 2: Andersson-Tojo-Sioland discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the bottom plate is free from plastic material (Anderson; abstract).
Claim 3: Andersson-Tojo-Sioland discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the bottom plate defines an outward flange engaged with the bottom end of the tubular body (Andersson; [0012]).
Claim 4: Andersson-Tojo-Sioland discloses the container of claim 2, further comprising a rim 15 attached to the top end of the tubular body above the top sealing member such that the reclosable lid contacts the rim (Herlin; fig. 3).
Claims 29-31. Andersson-Tojo-Sioland discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the rim 15 is welded to the interior surface 7 of the tubular body 3 to form a sift-proof weld seal (SIoland; [0067]).
Claim(s) 1 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlin (US 2018/0016038) in view of Tojo et al. (US 7,048,975).
Claim 1: Herlin discloses a container 1 comprising:
a tubular body 2 defining an interior of the container, the tubular body having a top end and a bottom end (fig. 1b);
a one top sealing member 33 positioned in the interior of the container spaced away from each of the top end and the bottom end of the tubular body, the at least one top sealing member sealably engaging at least a portion of the tubular body [0093];
a reclosable lid 14 attached to the rim 15 to form a closed top end of the container 2, ([0069-0071]; fig. 2);
a rim 15 attached to the top end of the tubular body and welded to an interior surface of the tubular body [0086-0088];
a bottom plate 10 attached to the bottom end of the tubular body to form a closed bottom end of the container [0083].
Herlin disclose a container body made primarily of cellulosic fibers. While the composition of the bottom plate is not disclosed, Tojo represents evidence of a container body and bottom portion, rim 50 and lid 30 being made of pulp fibers (col. 15-16, ll. 61-67; 1-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base construction of Herlin to include the reinforced pulp plate of Tojo to create an eco-friendlier assembly without comprising structural integrity.
Claims 29-31. Herlin-Tojo discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the rim 15 is welded to the interior surface 7 of the tubular body 3 to form a sift-proof weld seal (Herlin; abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights