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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 one or more latching grooves, one or more undercuts, and external thread of claim 8; the one or more further latching grooves, one or more further latching beads, one or more further undercuts, and internal thread of the mating connection means of claim 12; and the sealing element being screwed to the cartridge as per claim 14 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 2, line 5, the specification refers to claim 1. The specification should not refer to the claims as the claims are subject to change.
On p. 24, l. 23 of the submitted specification, “a error tolerance” should be “an error tolerance.”
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implied phraseology and refers to the purported merits, i.e. “Proposed is a cartridge system for making a beverage”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(c).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The sealing element in claims 1 and 31 (element 18 in the disclosure, numerous similar embodiments provided all including a sheet-like portion).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The connecting means in claim 8 (sufficient structure provided in the claim).
The mating connection means in claim 12 (sufficient structure provided in the claim).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the cartridge base,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no dependency from either of claims 6 and 7.
Claim 10 recites “the secondary region” and “the cartridge base,” each of which lack antecedent basis because there is no dependency from claim 7.
Claim 10 recites that “the connecting means is arranged adjacent to the secondary region, offset in a direction of the cartridge base.” The language renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear what “offset” means here. While the direction of the cartridge base is understandable (ignoring the antecedent basis issue), the claim does not adequately explain what the connecting means is offset from.
Claim 11 recites “the connecting means,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no dependency from claim 8.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8–12, 14–16, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krüger et al. (US Pub. 2019/0023552).
Claim 1: Krüger discloses a cartridge system for making a beverage (see title), wherein the cartridge system can be inserted into a beverage preparation machine (¶ 16, “a dispenser”), the cartridge system comprising:
a cartridge (1) comprising a reservoir filled with a beverage substance (¶ 39, “beverage substrate”); and
a cartridge receptacle (10) connected to the cartridge, wherein the cartridge receptacle comprises:
a mixing chamber (13), which can be brought into fluidic connection with the reservoir (as described in at least ¶ 39); and
a fluid feed (15) opening into the mixing chamber (see figs. 2, 5, and 6);
wherein the cartridge has a cartridge wall (6);
wherein the cartridge wall comprises a flange (5, see fig. 5) for mounting a sealing element (flange 5 is capable of mounting a sealing element; see the comment below); and
wherein the flange is designed as a radially outward-projecting region of the cartridge wall (visible in fig. 5).
Comment: Given that the claim recites that “the cartridge wall comprises a flange for mounting a sealing element,” the claim does not positively recite the sealing element, and all that is required is that the flange be capable of mounting a sealing element. Strictly speaking, Krüger does not disclose its flange being used for mounting the sealing element, since, for example, the lateral scope of the sealing element does not go beyond the basic thickness of the cartridge wall. However, should Applicant amend the claim to positively recite such a sealing element, the Office finds that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount an enlarged sealing element to the flange 5 of Krüger to provide its edge with greater surface area to be sealed to the cartridge with a more secure connection.
Claim 2: Krüger discloses that the flange is designed as a mouth region of the cartridge wall at an edge of the cartridge wall (ascertainable from fig. 5).
Claim 4: Krüger discloses that the flange is formed in a fully circumferential manner on the cartridge wall around an entire circumference of the cartridge wall (ascertainable from 5 in fig. 8).
Claim 6: Krüger discloses that the cartridge comprises a main body of a cup-shaped design (understood to be broad enough to be defined by 6 and 7), wherein the main body is formed with the aid of the cartridge wall (6), which is closed on one side by a cartridge base (7), wherein the main body comprises the reservoir (see ¶ 39).
Claim 8: Krüger discloses that the cartridge wall has a connecting means (20) for connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle (see ¶ 42), wherein the connecting means comprises one or more latching grooves, and/or one or more latching beads (20 qualifies as a latching bead), and/or one or more undercuts, and/or an external thread.
Claim 9: Krüger discloses that the connecting means is formed at a distance from the flange (see 20 and 5 in fig. 5), wherein the connecting means is arranged offset from the flange in a direction of the cartridge base (appreciable from fig. 5).
Claim 10: Krüger discloses that the connecting means is arranged adjacent to the secondary region (i.e. the secondary region as explained in claim 7, see fig. 5 of Krüger; see the § 112(b) rejection above), offset in a direction of the cartridge base (the connecting means 20 is plainly offset from the cartridge base; see the § 112(b) rejection above).
Claim 11: Krüger discloses that the connecting means for connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle comprises the flange and/or wherein the flange comprises the connecting means for connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle (fig. 6 and ¶ 42 effectively collectively disclose that the connecting means comprises the flange since both work together to fasten the cartridge receptacle 10 to the cartridge 1).
Claim 12: Krüger discloses that the cartridge receptacle comprises a mating connecting means complementary to the connecting means wherein the mating connecting means includes one or more further latching grooves (fig. 6 clearly shows complementary grooves interacting with 20 and 5), and/or one or more further latching beads, and/or one or more further undercuts, and/or an internal thread, wherein the mating connecting means is connected to the connecting means positively, nonpositively, and/or materially (fig. 6 shows a positive connection given how the grooves wrap around the connecting means and flange).
Claim 14: Krüger discloses that the sealing element is crimped, adhesively bonded, sealed, welded, and/or screwed to the cartridge with the aid of the flange (given that the sealing element is not positively recited, these limitations have limited patentable weight; the flange of Krüger is capable of mounting a sealing element by sealing thereto, just as Krüger’s closure 14 is (see ¶ 39, “by sealing”)).
Claim 15: Krüger discloses that the sealing element comprises a crimp cap (again, the sealing element is not positively recited, and the claim only requires that the flange be capable of mounting a sealing element that is a crimp cap, which it is).
Comment: MacGill (US Pat. 1,983,381) discloses an example of a beverage-related container with a crimp cap over a flange, see fig. 1 and p. 2, ll. 90–94.
Claim 16: Krüger discloses that the crimp cap comprises a metal (again, the sealing element is not positively recited, and is capable of being a metal foil).
Claim 30: Krüger discloses a beverage preparation machine (¶ 16, “dispenser”), comprising the cartridge system as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 31–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger.
Claim 5: Krüger does not disclose that the flange is formed with the aid of a thickened region of the cartridge wall.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thicken the cartridge wall adjacent to the flange in Krüger to give it more structural rigidity.
Claim 7: Krüger discloses that the cartridge wall comprises a secondary region which is arranged adjacent to the flange in a direction of the cartridge base (the region around 20 and 21 in fig. 5).
Krüger does not disclose that the cartridge wall has a smaller wall thickness in the secondary region than in a region of the flange.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thicken the cartridge wall adjacent to the flange in Krüger to give it more structural rigidity.
Claim 13: Krüger discloses that the cartridge has a sealing element (14), wherein, the main body is closed off by the sealing element on its side opposite the cartridge base (appreciable from fig. 2 showing an analogous embodiment) in an initial state of the cartridge system (cf. figs. 5 and 6).
Krüger does not disclose that the cartridge has a sealing element that is mounted to a flange (as per claim 1).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount an enlarged sealing element to the flange 5 of Krüger to provide its edge with greater surface area to be sealed to the cartridge with a more secure connection.
Claim 31: Krüger discloses a process for manufacturing the cartridge system as claimed in claim 1 comprising:
in a first process step, forming the cartridge wall of the cartridge comprising the flange (¶ 39, “The cartridge is manufactured . . . by injection-molding or by a blow-molding technique”);
in a second process step, securing a sealing element on the cartridge (¶ 39, “The cavity of the cartridge is hermetically sealed by a closure 14”); and
in a third process step, connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle (depicted in figs. 5 and 6).
Krüger does not disclose securing a sealing element on the cartridge with the aid of the flange. Instead, Kruger’s sealing element 14 seems to lie away from the flange (as per fig. 5).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount an enlarged sealing element to the flange 5 of Krüger to provide its edge with greater surface area to be sealed to the cartridge with a more secure connection.
Claim 32: Krüger discloses that, in an intermediate step carried out before the third process step, the cartridge receptacle is produced by injection molding of plastic (¶ 21, “the cartridge receptacle is made of plastic, in particular by injection-molding”).
Claim 33: Krüger discloses that a piercing spike (16) is produced in a further intermediate step, which is carried out before or after the third process step, and is introduced into a spike guide (29) of the cartridge receptacle (see ¶ 50).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Glucksman et al. (US Pub. 2009/0007793).
Krüger discloses that, in a further intermediate step carried out before the second process step, the sealing element and/or a sealing body of the sealing element (14) made of a sealing film comprising a plastic film (¶ 39, “membrane 14, in particular a plastic foil”).
Krüger does not disclose that the sealing element is punched out and/or cut out from a sealing film.
However, it is well-known to manufacture such sealing foils by punching or cutting them out of sheets, as suggested by Glucksman (¶ 67, “foil 42 can be punched or otherwise cut from sheets or the like”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the punch or cutting of sheets taught by Glucksman to produce the sealing elements of Krüger as a known and effective means to do so.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krüger as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Feldman et al. (US Pub. 2007/0062972).
Krüger does not disclose that the sealing element is formed around the flange of the cartridge wall before or during the second process step. Indeed, Krüger explicitly provides that “Preferably, the outer circumference of the membrane is less than the outer circumference of the flange.” This likely because the flange is used to affix the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle, and the sealing element at the flange edge could interfere with that.
However, Feldman discloses a similar system with a cartridge (116) having a flange (at 158) that has a sealing element formed therearound (156, via 174). Feldman’s cartridge interfaces with a similar cartridge receptacle (160, 167, part of the beverage system), and has the edge of the sealing element press against the receptacle rather than the flange itself.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the flange and closure design of Krüger with the flange and cap design of Feldman since this allows the cap to be removable (since it’s selectively attached by sealing member 174) rather than being sealingly attached (¶ 39 of Krüger implies this is done by adhesive or similar), and obviates the concern about the sealing element interfering with the connection between the cartridge and cartridge receptacle.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 31, and 33 of copending Application No. 18/025,691 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims disclose every element of the pending claims with one-way distinctness (MPEP § 804.II.B.4.).
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1: A cartridge system for making a beverage, wherein the cartridge system can be inserted into a beverage preparation machine, the cartridge system comprising:
a) a cartridge comprising a reservoir filled with a beverage substance; and
b) a cartridge receptacle connected to the cartridge, wherein the cartridge receptacle comprises:
a mixing chamber, which can be brought into fluidic connection with the reservoir; and
a fluid feed opening into the mixing chamber;
wherein the cartridge has a cartridge wall;
wherein the cartridge wall comprises a flange for mounting a sealing element; and
wherein the flange is designed as a radially outward-projecting region of the cartridge wall.
Claim 1: A cartridge system for making a beverage, wherein the cartridge system can be inserted into a beverage preparation machine, the cartridge system comprising:
a. a cartridge comprising a reservoir filled with a beverage substance; and
b. a cartridge receptacle connected to the cartridge,
wherein the cartridge receptacle comprises:
a mixing chamber, which can be brought into fluidic connection with the reservoir; and
a fluid feed opening into the mixing chamber;
wherein the cartridge has a cartridge wall; wherein the cartridge system has a sealing element for closing the reservoir;
wherein a seal is formed between the cartridge and the cartridge receptacle with the aid of a sealing means;
wherein the sealing element is formed with the aid of or by a screw cap;
wherein the screw cap has a seal and a bore;
wherein a mouth region of the cartridge has a thread for screwing on the screw cap;
wherein the screw cap is screwed onto the cartridge; and
wherein the cartridge receptacle is secured on the cartridge and/or the screw cap after the screw cap has been screwed on.
Claim 5: The cartridge system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cartridge wall comprises a flange for mounting the sealing element.
Claim 7: The cartridge system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the flange is designed as a radially outward-projecting region of the cartridge wall.
Claim 31: A process for manufacturing the cartridge system as claimed in claim 1 comprising:
in a first process step, forming the cartridge wall of the cartridge comprising the flange;
in a second process step, securing a sealing element on the cartridge with the aid of the flange; and
in a third process step, connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle.
Claim 31: A process for manufacturing the cartridge system as claimed in claim 1, comprising:
in a first process step, forming the cartridge wall of the cartridge;
in a second process step, securing a sealing element on the cartridge; and
in a third process step, connecting the cartridge to the cartridge receptacle;
wherein a seal is formed between the cartridge and the cartridge receptacle before, during and/or after the third process step with the aid of a sealing means.
Claim 33: The process as claimed in claim 31, wherein, in the first process step, the cartridge wall of the cartridge, comprising a flange, is formed, and wherein, in the second process step, the sealing element is secured on the cartridge with the aid of the flange.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Cafaro et al. (US Pub. 2019/0077586) discloses a cartridge with a flange and a sealing element at least proximate to the flange.
Bisaro et al. (IT 201600112071 A1), Lee et al. (US Pub. 2019/0212179), and Wauters et al. (GB 2446396 A) all disclose beverage-related containers with a flange formed along with a thickened wall region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761