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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-25, 29-30, 32-33, 35-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 18, 30, there is no support in the original disclosure for the recitation of the first concave portion has a larger diameter than the first and second convex portions and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding the diameter of the concave portion in relation to the first and second convex portions.
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 18-25, 29-30, 32-33, 35-36 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.
Regarding claim 18, 30, the claims recite in part, “concave portion has a larger diameter than the first and second convex portions” and it is not clear what exactly is being compared here since the comparison has not been specified. It is not clear what the diameter of the concave portion is being compared with and furthermore the lack of written description for the limitation further renders the scope unclear.
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) 18-24, 29-30, 32-33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,380,684 to Reed et al. (Reed).
Regarding claim 18, Reed discloses a container lid (110) comprising a floor (112), a lip (138) and an inner wall extending from the floor to the lip, the inner wall comprising a first convex portion (137), a second convex portion (132), a first concave portion (134), a second concave portion (124), wherein the first concave portion (134) is positioned between the convex portion (137) and second concave portion (124) (Fig 1), wherein the first concave portion (134) has a larger diameter (2r6) than first and second convex portions (137, 132). In particular, Reed discloses the convex portions having radius (r7, r5) and diameter of the concave portion would be twice the radius (2r6) which would be greater than r7 and r5.
Regarding claim 19, Reed further discloses the lip (138) comprising a top portion (A, Fig 1 below), the first convex portion (137) extending from the lip top portion (Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Reed further discloses the second concave portion (124) extends from container lid floor (112).
Regarding claim 21, Reed further discloses first concave portion (134) has a larger diameter (r6) than diameter (r2) of second concave portion (124).
Regarding claim 22, Reed further discloses first concave portion (134) extends from first convex portion (137).
Regarding claim 23, Reed further discloses the second convex portion (132) extending between the first concave portion (134) and second concave portion (124).
Regarding claim 24, Reed further discloses inner wall tapered outwardly as inner wall extends toward the lip (138).
Regarding claim 29, Reed further discloses container lid (110) capable of being hermetically sealed to a container since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 30, Reed discloses a container lid comprising a floor (112), a lip (138) and an inner wall extending between the floor and lip, the inner wall comprising rounded portions (137, 132, 134) that can accommodate pressure as recited since it has the structure as recited, the rounded portions are located in the inner wall and comprise a first convex portion (137), a second convex portion (132), a first concave portion (134) between the convex portions, wherein the first concave portion has a larger diameter (2r6) than first and second convex portions (137, 132). In particular, the convex portions (137, 132) are defined by their radius (r7, r5) which are less than diameter (2r6) of the first concave portion (134)
Regarding claim 32, Reed further discloses inner wall comprising four rounded portions (137, 124, 134, 132).
Regarding claim 33, Reed further discloses first rounded portion (124) is integral with the floor (112) and second rounded portion (137) integral with the lip (138).
Regarding claim 35, Reed further discloses an associated radii of the rounded portions (r2, r6, r7) that provide flexibility in the lid to function as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 36, Reed further discloses the rounded portions configured to absorb pressure as recited since it has the structure as recited.
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) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of US Patent No. 4,189,060 to Trotman, III (Trotman).
Regarding claim 25, Reed teaches the lid of claim 18 but does not teach an opening and removable tab. However, Trotman discloses a container lid (Fig 2) and in particular discloses the lid comprising an opening (14) and a removable tab (18), the opening formed through the floor (12), the removable tab fixed to the floor, covers the opening and is in sealing contact with the floor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an opening and tab to Reed as suggested by Trotman in order to facilitate pouring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach first concave portion having a larger diameter than first and second convex portions. Assuming arguendo that applicant has support for the claimed limitation, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the first concave portion has a diameter of (2r6) which is greater than the radius of the first and second convex portions (r7, r5).
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights