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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended and claim 26 has been added
Claims 1-8 and 26 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
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.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 1 teaches a rim welded to the top end of the tubular body. Claim 26 requires the rim be welded at least 4 mm below the top end. Based on the claim limitations, the rim structure and placement is unclear. Appropriate action is required.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holka et al. (US 2019/0256230) in view of Berk et al. (US 9,505,521) in view of Costa et al. (US 2017/0031165).
Claim 1. Holka discloses a container 1 for holding bulk solids, the container comprising:
a tubular body 2 extending at least partially around an interior of the container to form a tubular body having a top end 4 and a bottom end 5 ([0056-0057]);
at least one sealing member 14 positioned in the interior of the container, the at least one sealing member sealably engaging at least a portion of the tubular body [0058];
a reclosable lid 19 attached to a top portion of the tubular body [0072]; and
a bottom plate 16 attached to the bottom end of the tubular body to form a closed bottom end of the container ([0054]; fig. 3); and
a rim 17 welded to the top end of the tubular body such that the reclosable lid contacts the rim [0062].
Holka teaches a two-material container system that is bonded together upon closing but fails to teach a rim comprising pulp fibers. Berk introduces the bonding of a pulp body with a pulp shoulder. The pulp shoulder (rim) mates with a bioplastic neck portion 430 for attaching a reclosable lid 440 (fig. 6-7; claim 1). 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 material of the plastic rim of Holka to include the two-part pulp to pulp bond of Berk to increase strength and overall properties of the final product.
Berk teaches the that the bonding/adhesive agent is not soluble in water but is biodegradable while allowing the bottle to be recycled (col. 6, ll. 33-51).
Holka discloses a two-part hinge attaching the lid to the container body but fails to disclose an adhesive strip attachment. Costa teaches a reclosable lid attached to a top portion of the tubular body with an adhesive strip to form a closed top end of the container [0057]. 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 Holka to include the adhesive hinge of Costa for easy assemble and disassembly of the container from the lid.
Claim 2. Holka-Berk-Costa discloses the container of claim 1, where an adhesive attachment can be made to mate the lid with the container body but fails to teach an adhesive hinge. Costa teaches wherein the adhesive strip is arranged to form a hinge between the reclosable lid and the tubular body [0057].
Claim 3. Holka-Berk-Costa discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the adhesive strip is comprised of a flexible material configured to deform when the reclosable lid is moved between a closed position (Costa; [0058]), in which the reclosable lid is overlying the interior of the container, and an open position, in which the reclosable lid is raised away from the interior of the container (Holka; fig. 3).
Claim 4. Holka-Berk-Costa discloses the container of claim 3, wherein the adhesive strip is positioned in at least partial face-to-face contact with a respective portion of each of the tubular body and the reclosable lid (Costa; fig. 3).
Claim 5. Holka-Berk-Costa discloses the container of claim 4, wherein the adhesive strip is comprised of a composite material (Costa; [0058]).
Claims 6-7. Holka-Beck-Costa discloses the container of claim 5, wherein the reclosable lid comprises pulp fibers (Holka; [0036]).
Claim 8. Holka-Berk-Costa the container of claim 7, wherein the at least one sealing member 14 is positioned in the interior of the container spaced away from each of the top end and the bottom end of the tubular body (Holka; 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Holka teaches the claimed structural elements of Applicants’ invention. The elements of claim 1 include a tubular body, sealing member, recloseable lid, bottom plate and a rim. Figures 6 and 7 of Holka are cited for teaching these elements. Upon further review, Holka also teaches welding the rim and bottom plate to the tubular body. The paperboard container body in conjunction with the thermoplastic rims and closure are welded together to produce a fillable container assembly. In the two-part material bond, Holka fails to include pulp fibers. Secondary reference Berk teaches a multi-part container assembly where pulp fibers are bonded with other plastic materials to maintain the structure of the assembly. Modifying the two-part material bond of Holka to include the pulp fibers of Berk would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. The rejection is respectfully maintained.
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