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 March 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-11 remain pending in the application.
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 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 Krauer (US Patent No. 20140224370).
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 a 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 flat 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), and reversibly disassembling the container lid from the container by deforming and pulling the container lid from the container (Paragraph 19-20 and Figure 1-2, Handle 8 Is Used to deform the Lid Head 9 upwards and downwards, also the lid can be screwed on and off to the opening of the container 3).
However, Vierkoetter fails to teach that the lid is responsive to pressure, has a top portion that is flat across an entire top surface, and a connection region that is thinner than the peripheral portion.
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 content of the container to increase a pressure within the container attached (Col 2 Line 25-Col 3 Line 6, The pressure is increased by heating contents of container) with the container lid above a threshold 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 the top portion is flat across an entire top surface
Krauer teaches an closure for containers (Paragraph 2, Closure for containers) where the top portion that is flat across an entire top surface (Figure 2, Base 6 in the upper region of Expanding Body 4 acting as a upper portion is flat).
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 shape of the top portion as stated in Krauer. Regarding the shape of the top portion, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 of this particular shape, since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape. (MPEP 2144.05-IV-B)
Regarding Claim 2, Vierkoetter 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Krauer 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 Krauer 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).
Claim 11 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), Krauer (US Patent No. 20140224370) and Lee.
Regarding Claim 11, Vierkoetter in view of Yoshino, Collie and Krauer 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 Krauer 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.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed March 10, 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 teach a flat top surface and that Yoshino does not teach a lid that can be pressed downwards and upwards. Applicant further argues that Collie and Krauer fail to teach these limitations as well. However, Vierkoetter teaches a handle that allows the user to press the lid downwards and upwards and Yoshino teaches a flat surface for the lid. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7, filed March 10, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vierkoetter, Yoshino, Collie and Krauer do not teach that the lid can be deformed and removed from the container. However, as mentioned by the applicant, Vierkoetter teaches that the lid is screwed on to the container. The reasonable broadest interpretations reads as the lid being removable as it can be unscrewed. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art in Vierkoetter claims that the lid is permanently attached to the container.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8, filed March 10th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 103 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 Lee.
Conclusion
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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights