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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-17 remain pending in the application. Claim 3 has been canceled.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierkoetter (DE Patent No. 3522227) in view of Yoshino (JP Patent No. H0548002) and further in view of Collie (US Patent No. 3658217) and Allen (US Patent No. 20130212986).
Regarding Claim 1, Vierkoetter teaches a method, comprising: removably (Paragraph 19-20 and Figure 1-2, Lid Head 9 can be screwed on and off to the opening of the container 3) assembling the container lid onto a container (Paragraph 1, Reusable Lid), the container lid including an upper portion (Figure 1-2, Head 9 and Annular Diaphragm 6 makes up the upper portion), a flange (Figure 1 and Paragraph 19, Extendable Dispersing Closure 1 and Rigid Outer Ring 4 act as the Flange), and a lower portion extending inward and downward from the flange (Figure 1-2, Lid Head 9 is pushed downward into lower portion 5 which extends inward and downward from lid flange attached on the container 3), the upper portion including a top portion that is configured to pressing receive force to press down the upper portion (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 19-20, Lid Head 9 has a flat surface and is pushed downward into lower portion 5 using Handle 8), a peripheral portion extending from the top portion (Figure 2, Annular Diaphragm 6 makes up the peripheral portion and extends from the lid Head 9), and a connection region between the peripheral portion and the flange (Figure 2, Showcases a connection region between Annular Diaphragm 6, that makes up the peripheral portion, and the Extendable Dispersing Closure 1 and Rigid Outer Ring 4, that act as the Flange), receiving the pressing force from a user on the top portion that is flat across the entire top surface to reversibly lower the upper portion (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 19-20, Lid Head 9 has a surface and is pushed downward into lower portion 5 using Handle 8) to abut the lower portion by deforming the connection region (Figure 1-2, Showcases Upper Portion lowered into Lower Portion by deforming Connection Regions); reversibly unblocking the one or more vent holes in the peripheral portion by deforming the connection region so that the peripheral portion is detached from the lower portion of the container lid (Figure 1-2, Showcases Upper Portion can be detached from Lower Portion by deforming Connection Regions).
However, Vierkoetter fails to teach that the lid is responsive to pressure, receiving a food item in a container, has a top portion that is flat across an entire top surface, and a connection region that is thinner than the peripheral portion, and reversibly disassembling the container lid from the container by deforming and pulling the container lid from the container.
Yoshino teaches a cooking container with a lid (Figure 1-2, Container with a lid) that has a flat surface (Figure 1, Container with a lid that has a flat surface) where blocking one or more vent holes formed in the peripheral portion by the lower portion in response to lowering the upper portion (Figure 1, Vent Holes 5 are blocked when Lid body 2 is pushed downward into a lower position of the lid from a flange while the lid is attached to the container 1); heating the food item in the container to increase a pressure above a threshold within the container attached with the container lid (Col 2 Line 25-Col 3 Line 6, The pressure is increased by heating contents of container) responsive to the pressure increasing above the threshold (Figure 2, and Col 2 Line 20-Col 3 Line 6, Increasing pressure within container unblocks the Vent Holes 5 automatically by pushing Lid Body 2 upwards from lower position when the pressure overcomes reaches a threshold to overpower the adhesive 4); and relieving the pressure within the container by venting air or vapor through the unblocked one or more vent holes (Figure 2, When Vent Holes 5 are open the pressure is relieved).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter to incorporate a lid that is responsive to pressure as stated in Yoshino. The unblocking of the holes and the releasing of the pressure helps maintain suitable pressure in the container for cooking (Col 2-3 Line 25-6, Pressure).
Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino fails to teach a connection region that is thinner than the peripheral portion.
Collie teaches a dispensing container (Col 1 Line 2, Container) with a connection region thinner than the peripheral portion (Figure 4, Hinge 22 is thinner than inwardly projecting sides 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino to incorporate a thinner connection region as stated in Collie. The hinge helps connect the lid to the container and helps with the lowering and raising of the lid (Col 2 Line 15-27 and Figure 4, Outer Hinge).
Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Collie fails to teach that a container receiving a food item in a container, top portion is flat across an entire top surface, and reversibly disassembling the container lid from the container by deforming and pulling the container lid from the container.
Allen teaches an removable lid for containers holding food product (Paragraph 4, Removable lid for containers holding food product) receiving a food item in a container (Paragraph 3-4, Container contains food product), where the top portion that is flat across an entire top surface (Figure 1, Closure 108 with an upper portion that is flat), and reversibly disassembling the container lid from the container by deforming and pulling the container lid from the container (Paragraph 29 and Figure 2, The Closure 108 has latches 140 that can be deformed to pull the lid from the container).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Collie to incorporate the container for receiving food as stated in Allen. The container simplifies the transportation of packaged foodstuffs, provide surface space for nutritional labeling, and functions as the receptacle from which a user consumes the foodstuff (Paragraph 3-4, Container).
Regarding Claim 2, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches that one or more vent holes are blocked by having the lower portion contact the peripheral portion (Vierkoetter: Figure 1, Holes 10 are blocked when Lid Head 9 is pushed into Lower Portion 5), and wherein the one or more vent holes are unblocked by separating the lower portion and the peripheral portion (Vierkoetter: Figure 2, Holes 10 are unblocked when Lid Head 9 is separated from Lower Portion 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches the pressing force on a top portion of the upper portion (Vierkoetter: Paragraph 5, the Lid head can be pushed pressed down to close Holes 10) causes the connection region to deform (Vierkoetter: Figure 1-2, showcases that the connection region between Annular Diaphragm 6, and Rigid Outer Ring 4 deform).
Regarding Claim 5, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches that at least the peripheral portion is made of a flexible material (Vierkoetter: Paragraph 24 and Figure 1-2, the lid and Annular Diaphragm 6 are shown to be flexible).
Regarding Claim 6, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches that the upper portion is bistable at a first state where the one or more vent holes are blocked and a second state where the one or more vent holes are unblocked (Vierkoetter: Figure 1-2, the lid is shown to be bistable with on state where vents are blocked and another state where they are unblocked).
Regarding Claim 7, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches a one-piece, re-closable lid (Vierkoetter: Paragraph 1, Reusable Lid) where an inner end of the lower portion defines a hole open towards the container (Vierkoetter: Figure 2 and Paragraph 19, Lower portion 5 define an open hole to Container 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches a one-piece, re-closable lid (Vierkoetter: Paragraph 1, Reusable Lid) where wherein the flange, the lower portion and the upper portion are integrated as a single body (Vierkoetter: Figure 2, the lower portion 5, Lid Head 9 and flange are a single body).
Regarding Claim 9, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie, and Allen teaches a one-piece, re-closable lid (Vierkoetter: Paragraph 1, Reusable Lid) further comprising fitting the container lid onto the top of the container so that an annular body of the flange extending outwards and a hook of the flange sealingly engage the container (Vierkoetter: Figure 1 and 3, Lid is on top of the circular container where the flange extends outwards and hooks the side of the container to seal it).
Regarding Claim 10, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Allen fails to teach a lid with a second connection region.
Collie teaches a dispensing container (Col 1 Line 2, Container) with a wherein automatically unblocking comprises deforming another connection region between the peripheral portion and the top portion of the container lid, wherein the other connection region is thinner than the peripheral portion (Figure 3-5, Showcases that the inwardly projecting sides 21 and Basin 20 are connected by an Inner Hinge 23 which is thinner and helps block and unblock Apertures 26 by deforming).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Allen to incorporate an inner connection region as stated in Collie. The hinge helps connect the top of the lid to the peripheral portion and helps with the lowering and raising of the lid (Figure 3-5, Inner Hinge).
Regarding Claim 15, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Collie fails to teach that the container lid is formed by a single injection molding process.
Allen teaches an removable lid for containers holding food product (Paragraph 4, Removable lid for containers holding food product) where the container lid is formed by a single injection molding process (Paragraph 36-37, Closure 108 can be made using injection moldable thermoplastics and a mold base).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino and Collie to incorporate injection molding process as stated in Allen. The mold base allows for the lids to be readily stripped from the mold core with the aid of compressed air and without the need of a sliding or collapsible cores or knock-out pins (Paragraph 37, Mold base).
Regarding Claim 17, Vierkoetter in view of Collie and Allen teaches the lid structures such as the hole (Vierkoetter: Figure 2 and Paragraph 19, Lower portion 5 define an open hole to Container 3), the top portion (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 19-20, Lid Head 9 has a surface that reads as a top portion), and the peripheral portion (Figure 2, Showcases a connection region between Annular Diaphragm 6, that makes up the peripheral portion).
However, Yoshino teaches a cooking container with a lid (Figure 1-2, Container with a lid) that has a flat surface (Figure 1, Container with a lid that has a flat surface) where the air or vapor from the heated food item pushes the lid in an upwards direction (Figure 2, and Col 2 Line 20-Col 3 Line 6, Increasing pressure within container unblocks the Vent Holes 5 automatically by pushing Lid Body 2 upwards from lower position).
The combination of Vierkoetter and Yoshino teaches the limitations of claim 17, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter to incorporate a lid that is responsive to pressure as stated in Yoshino. The unblocking of the vent holes and the releasing of the pressure helps maintain suitable pressure in the container for cooking (Col 2-3 Line 25-6, Pressure).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierkoetter (DE Patent No. 3522227) in view of Yoshino (JP Patent No. H0548002) and further in view of Collie (US Patent No. 3658217), Allen (US Patent No. 20130212986) and Lee (KR Patent No. 101107377).
Regarding Claim 11, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen fails to teach that the hook is dimensioned to have a radial size larger than a largest radial size of a side wall of the container.
Lee teaches a lid for a container (Figure 1, Lid) where the hook is dimensioned to have a radial size larger than a largest radial size of a side wall of the container (Figure 1, Lid 20 has a coupling Portion 21 that has a radial size larger than a largest radial size of a side wall 10 of the container 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen to incorporate an hook that has a radial size larger than a largest radial size of a side wall of the container as stated in Lee. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the exit portion has an axial length of about .2T since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.).
Regarding Claim 12, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen fails to teach that the removably assembling comprises deforming a hook of the flange outward and latching the hook onto an externally protruding rim of the container, the externally protruding rim received in an inner groove of the hook, an inner rib of the hook engaging a bottom portion of the externally protruding rim to lock the container lid onto the container.
Lee teaches a lid for a container (Figure 1, Lid) where the removably assembling comprises deforming a hook of the flange outward (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21 is able to deform around rim of main body 10 and can be removed) and latching the hook onto an externally protruding rim of the container (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21 is deform around rim of main body 10), the externally protruding rim received in an inner groove of the hook (Figure 1, Rim of main body 10 is received in a groove of Coupling Portion 21), an inner rib of the hook engaging a bottom portion of the externally protruding rim to lock the container lid onto the container (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21 has a portion at the bottom that engages with the Rim of main body 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen to incorporate an Kook and Rim as stated in Lee. The Hook and Rim work together to couple the lid to the container (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21).
Regarding Claim 13, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen fails to teach that the reversibly disassembling comprises deforming the hook to release the externally protruding rim from the inner groove.
Lee teaches a lid for a container (Figure 1, Lid) where the reversibly disassembling comprises deforming the hook to release the externally protruding rim from the inner groove (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21 with a groove is able to deform around rim of main body 10 and can be removed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen to incorporate an Hook and Rim as stated in Lee. The Hook and Rim work together to couple the lid to the container (Figure 1, Coupling Portion 21).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierkoetter (DE Patent No. 3522227) in view of Yoshino (JP Patent No. H0548002) and further in view of Collie (US Patent No. 3658217), Allen (US Patent No. 20130212986) and Kaposi (US Patent No. 20060151511).
Regarding Claim 14, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen teaches that the container lid having different thicknesses at different parts of the container lid (Vierkoetter: Figure 2, The lid has different thickness at different parts of it).
Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen fails to teach that the container lid is made of silicone.
Kaposi teaches a lid for food container (Figure 4B and Paragraph 2, Lid for food container) where the container lid is made of silicone (Paragraph 18 and Figure 4A, Lid 10 is made of silicone).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen to incorporate a silicone lid as stated in Lee. The silicone lid has a relatively high coefficient of friction to enable a strong seal and reduce slipping at the interface between the lid and a container. (Paragraph 18, Lid 10).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierkoetter (DE Patent No. 3522227) in view of Yoshino (JP Patent No. H0548002) and further in view of Collie (US Patent No. 3658217), Allen (US Patent No. 20130212986) and Schaepers (US Patent No. 9730555).
Regarding Claim 16, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen fails to teach that the top portion and the flange are made of a plastic material, and the peripheral portion is made of silicone.
Schaepers teaches a food container with a cover (Abstract, Container and Cover) where the top portion and the flange are made of a plastic material (Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 12-24, The top portion 13 and bottom portion 15 with lip 30 are plastic), and the peripheral portion is made of silicone (Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 12-24, The middle portion 14 is a silicone-based thermoplastic elastomeric material).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Allen to incorporate a lid made from plastics and silicone as stated in Schaepers. The top portion 13 and bottom portion 15 is made from food safe plastics used in food preparations. (Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 12-24, Food Safe).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed July, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vierkoetter does not teach a lid that is reversibly disassembling the container lid from the container by deforming and pulling the container lid from the container. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Allen
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed July, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vierkoetter does not disclose receiving a food item in a container or heating a food item to increase a pressure above a threshold. However Yoshino teaches that limitation as stated in the office action. Furthermore applicant argues that Yoshino relates to a single-use cooking container in which a container cover is secured to a container body and is not configured to be repeatedly pressed and reverted. However these limitations are taught by Vierkoetter. Also applicant also argues that Collie relates to a dispensing container having a hinged closure and was cited for a connection region that is thinner than the peripheral portion and that Lee was cited for coupling portion radial size but both do not disclose or suggest the features recited in amended claim 1 identified above. The limitations recited above were taught by Vierkoetter and Yoshino. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. (MPEP 2145(IV)).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8, filed July 10th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 Using Krauer which is no longer an analogous art due to the amendments made to claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Allen.
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
