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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 2 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claims 9 and 10 recite wherein the lid and base comprise plastic, pulp, paper, metal, or a combination thereof. It is unclear if this is in addition to the molded fiber previously claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ott et al. (US-4883195-A).
Ott discloses a container (Fig. 5) for holding contents therein, the container comprising: a base (20) comprising a rim (22, 22a, 24) extending around a perimeter of the base, the base defining a first opening (36’) at the rim at a first side of the base, the base defining a second opening (36’) at the rim at a second side of the base, wherein the second side of the base is opposite to the first side of the base (Fig. 5); and a lid (10) comprising a trim extending outwardly along a perimeter of the lid, the lid also comprising a first tab (34’) extending outwardly from the trim at a first side of the lid and the lid also comprising a second tab (34’) extending outwardly from the trim at a second side of the lid, wherein the second side of the lid is opposite to the first side of the lid (Fig. 5); and wherein the first tab is configured to be received in the first opening and the second tab is configured to be received in the second opening (col. 5, lines 1-4), and wherein the lid comprises a handle (32’).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US-3984027-A) in view of .
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses:
1. A container (Fig. 3) for holding contents therein, the container comprising: a first part (12) comprising a trim (36) extending outwardly along a perimeter of the first part, the first part also comprising a first tab (38) extending outwardly from the trim at a first side of the first part and the first part also comprising a second tab (40) extending outwardly from the trim at a second side of the first part, wherein the second side of the first part is opposite to the first side of the first part (Fig. 2); and a second part (10) comprising a rim (16) extending around its perimeter, the second part defining a first opening (20) at the rim at a first side of the second part, the second part defining a second opening (22) at the rim at a second side of the second part, wherein the second side of the second part is opposite to the first side of the second part (Fig. 1), wherein the first tab is configured to be received in the first opening and the second tab is configured to be received in the second opening thereby providing a snap fit closure between the first part and the second part (col. 4, lines 3-9).
Smith fails to teach wherein the first and second part comprise molded fiber.
Simmons teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container out of molded fiber that is renewable, compostable, or recycled material (col. 2, lines 54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container out of molded fiber, in order to adjust cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 2-10, 15, 17-20, 22, 24-29 and 31 , the modified container of Smith teaches:
2. The container of claim 1, wherein the first part is a base and the second part is a lid (Fig. 3).
3. The container of claim 1, wherein the first part is a lid and the second part is a base (Fig. 3, based on orientation).
4. The container of claim 1, wherein the first opening, the second opening, or both is a slot (Figs. 4, 5).
5. The container of claim 1, wherein the first opening, the second opening, or both has an oblong shape, a circular shape, a semi-circular shape, a polygonal shape, an asymmetrical shape, or other geometrical shape (Figs. 4, 5).
6. A container (Fig. 3) for holding contents therein, the container comprising: a base (12) comprising a trim (36) extending outwardly along a perimeter of the base, the base also comprising a first tab (38) extending outwardly from the trim at a first side of the base and the base also comprising a second tab (40) extending outwardly from the trim at a second side of the base, wherein the second side of the base is opposite to the first side of the base (Fig. 2); and a lid (10) comprising a rim (16) extending around its perimeter, the lid defining a first opening (20) at the rim at a first side of the lid, the lid defining a second opening (22) at the rim at a second side of the lid (Fig. 1), wherein the second side of the lid is opposite to the first side of the lid, wherein the first tab is configured to be received in the first opening and the second tab is configured to be received in the second opening thereby providing a snap fit closure between the base and the lid (col. 4, lines 3-9), wherein the base and lid both comprise molded fiber (Simmons, col. 2, lines 54-55).
7. The container of claim 6, wherein the first opening, the second opening, or both is a slot (Figs. 4, 5).
8. The container of claim 6, wherein the first opening, the second opening, or both has an oblong shape, a circular shape, a semi-circular shape, a polygonal shape, an asymmetrical shape, or other geometrical shape (Figs. 4, 5).
9. The container of claim 6, wherein the lid comprises a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, pulp, paper, fiber, metal, and a combination thereof (col. 2, lines 45-50).
10. The container of claim 6, wherein the base comprises a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, pulp, paper, fiber, metal, and a combination thereof (col. 2, lines 45-50).
15. The container of claim 6, wherein the second tab is oversized relative to the second opening so that, when the second tab is received in the second opening, the second tab extends through the second opening and past an outer surface of the rim of the lid (Fig. 7).
17. The container of claim 6, wherein the lid has a rectangular shape (Fig. 1).
18. The container of claim 6, wherein the lid has rounded corners (Fig. 1).
19. The container of claim 6, wherein the base has a rectangular shape (Fig. 2).
20. The container of claim 6, wherein the base has rounded corners (Fig. 2).
22. The container of claim 6, wherein the lid further comprises a third opening (24).
24. The container of claim 22, wherein the lid has a third side with no openings defined at the third side, the lid has a fourth side with no openings defined at the fourth side (Fig. 1), the base has a third side with no tabs defined at the third side, and the base has a fourth side with no tabs defined at the fourth side (Fig. 2).
25. The container of claim 22, wherein the lid has two openings defined at the first side of the lid and one opening defined at the second side of the lid (Fig. 1), and wherein the base comprises two tabs at the first side of the base and one tab at the second side of the base (Fig. 2).
26. The container of claim 6, wherein the container is configured to form a seal or locking when in a closed state, with the container being in a closed state when the first tab is received in the first opening and when the second tab is received in the second opening (col. 4, lines 3-9).
27. The container of claim 26, wherein the seal or the locking is configured to reduce leakage of the material from the container (col. 3, ll. 11).
28. The container of claim 6, wherein the container is configured to hold food therein (col. 1, lines 5-6).
29. The container of claim 6, wherein the base comprises a first handle (44) configured to be grasped to assist in separating the base from the lid.
31. A container (Fig. 3) for holding contents therein, the container comprising: a lid (10) comprising a rim (16) extending around a perimeter of the lid, the lid defining a first opening (20) at the rim at a first side of the lid, the lid defining a second opening (22) at the rim at a second side of the lid, wherein the second side of the lid is opposite to the first side of the lid (Fig. 1); and a base (12) comprising a trim (36) extending outwardly along a perimeter of the base, the base also comprising a first tab (38) extending outwardly from the trim at a first side of the base and the base also comprising a second tab (40) extending outwardly from the trim at a second side of the base, wherein the second side of the base is opposite to the first side of the base (Fig. 2); and wherein the first tab is configured to be received in the first opening and the second tab is configured to be received in the second opening (col. 4, lines 3-9), wherein the base and lid both comprise molded fiber (Simmons, col. 2, lines 54-55)..
Regarding claims 13, 14, 16, 21 and 23:
The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the base and lid are manufactured out of molded fiber that is renewable, compostable, or recycled material (Simmons, col. 2, lines 54-55), but fails to teach wherein the lid comprises a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, pulp, paper, metal, and a combination thereof, wherein the base comprises a first plurality of tabs including the first tab extending outwardly from the trim at the first side of the base, the base comprises a second plurality of tabs including the second tab extending outwardly from the trim at the second side of the base, the lid defines a first plurality of openings including the first opening at the rim at the first side of the lid, and the lid defines a second plurality of openings including the second opening at the rim at the second side of the lid, wherein the first opening, the second opening, or both is positioned at one of the rounded corners, and wherein the lid defines the third opening at the rim at a third side of the lid, the lid defines a fourth opening at the rim at a fourth side of the lid, the third side of the lid is opposite to the fourth side of the lid, the base comprises a third tab extending outwardly from the trim at a third side of the base, the base comprises a fourth tab extending outwardly from the trim at a fourth side of the base, the fourth side of the base is opposite to the third side of the base, the third tab is configured to be received in the third opening, and the fourth tab is configured to be received in the fourth opening.
Simmons teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container out of pulp[ and paper (col. 2, lines 53-55), and wherein the container can include 4 tabs and four slots at corners of the container (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container out of the claimed materials, in order to adjust cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice
It would be obvious to have manufactured the container with additional tabs and openings, in order to create a more secure connection and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the tabs and openings at corners since such modification would be locating components at known locations and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant's remaining arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733