DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
All previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 in response to Office Action 5/22/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive:
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that primary prior art Marshall’s inner wall 16 cannot teach defining the container interior opening (Applicant Fig 1A, 36) as claimed because 16 is spaced away from Marshall’s container interior opening (page 7, para last). Examiner agrees that 16 is spaced so cannot “define” the container’s opening, hence this is a Second Non-Final action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 8/21/2025 is acknowledged. See previous action for full details.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20070062948 by Albrecht et al. (hereinafter “Albrecht”) in view of US Pub 20040118848 by Marshall (hereinafter “Marshall”).
Regarding claim 1, Albrecht teaches a container (Fig 1, 10) comprising:
a sidewall (Fig 1, 12), a bottom (Fig 1, 16), and a rim or neck portion (Fig 6, “rim 24” with skirt 18 is a neck portion of the container 10 sidewall 12),
the sidewall, the bottom, and the rim portion being integrally formed or connected with each other (Fig 6, 12, 16, 24 and 18 are integrally formed together), at least a portion of the sidewall being located between the bottom and the rim portion (Fig 6, at least a portion of 12 is shown between 16 and 24/18),
the rim portion (24 with 18) including an inner wall (Fig 6, an inner wall is wall upper rim 24) and an outer wall (Fig 6, an outer wall is rim 32 of 18), the inner wall and the outer wall being spaced from each other and connected to each other by an extension (Fig 6, an extension portion is shown spacing and connecting 24 from 32/18), wherein
an interior opening is defined by the inner wall of the rim portion, the sidewall and the bottom (Fig 6, an interior opening of the container is shown defined by 24, 12 and 16), wherein an exterior opening is formed between the inner wall, the outer wall, and the extension (Fig 6, an exterior opening is defined between 24, 32 and their connecting extension), the exterior opening being sized and configured to receive a sidewall of a lid when the container is used with the lid to form a package (Fig 21, a sidewall 106 of a lid 100 is shown received in the exterior opening), wherein the outer wall has
a tamper-evident section (Figs 1 & 22, a tamper-evident section of 32/18 is tear tab 14),
But Albrecht does not explicitly teach that the tamper evident section is foldable.
Marshall, however, teaches a similar tamper evident container, that also similarly reveals the lid sidewall for opening the lid by removing a portion of the rim portion, comprising:
a tamper-evident foldable section (Fig 20, [0032], an integral tamper-evident foldable section of a rim portion 12 is detent tab 20), the tamper-evident foldable section having a first end and a second end (Fig 20, a first end of 20 is proximal 24, and a second end of 20 is proximal 32), the first end of the tamper-evident foldable section being configured to fold back toward and secure to a second end of the tamper-evident foldable section so as to expose the sidewall of the lid (Figs 4 & 21 & 24-25, the first end 24 of 20 is folded back and secured to the second end 32, thereby exposing sidewall 28 of the lid 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tamper evident section of Albrecht to be foldable as taught by Marshall in order to advantageously retain the section versus littering of a completely removable section like Albrecht, while still reliably exposing the lid rim for lifting and evidencing tampering like Albrecht, but also beneficially allow the retained tab to unfold to once again protect/block the lid sidewall from jostling open.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the section of Albrecht such that it is foldable as it is no more than a simple substitution of one tamper evidence in the rim for another that is known in the art for evidencing tampering and would only produce the predictable results of the main function of exposing the lid sidewall for opening the lid. MPEP 2143 I-B.
(wherein Marshall teaches related elements in light of dependent claims:
Fig 25, an outward projection is stud 32; Fig 25, [0080], a slot opening is “a port” that is shown registering with 32; projection shown received within the opening after 20 is folded;
Fig 19 shows that 20 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference;
Fig 20, 24 is shown frangibly connected;
[0078] “the lid assembly is placed over a container 12 and snapped into place”;
32 is on the first end and the slot is on the second end)
Regarding claims 2 and 15 (similar limitation, different dependency), Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the tamper-evident foldable section (Marshall, Fig 20, 20) has a projection extending outwardly therefrom (Marshall, Fig 25, an outward projection is stud 32) and an opening formed therein (Marshall, Fig 25, [0080], a slot opening is “a port” that is shown registering with 32), the opening sized and configured to receive the projection after the tamper-evident foldable section is folded (Marshall, Fig 25, projection shown received within the opening after 20 is folded). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the opening is a slot (Marshall, Fig 25, [0080], the slot opening “port”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claims 4 and 16 (similar limitation, different dependency), Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the tamper-evident foldable section (Marshall, Fig 20, 20) extends from 2 to 40 percent around a circumference of the rim portion (Marshall, Fig 19 shows that 20 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference; and Albrecht, Fig 1 shows that 14 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claims 5 and 17 (similar limitation, different dependency), Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the tamper-evident foldable section (Marshall, Fig 20, 20) extends from 2 to 20 percent around the circumference of the rim portion (Marshall, Fig 19 shows that 20 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference; and Albrecht, Fig 1 shows that 14 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 6, Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the projection is located on the first end of the tamper-evident foldable section and the slot is formed on the second end of the tamper-evident foldable section (Marshall, Fig 25, 32 is on the first end and the slot is on the second end). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
In addition, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Albrecht/Marshall does not teach the particular locations, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the projection location for the slot location, since it has been held that if shifting the position of the element would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement of the element is an obvious matter of design choice (i.e. swapping the slot and projection does not change surrounding structure or destroy the principal function of this fastener). MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Regarding claims 7 and 18 (similar limitation, different dependency), Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the outer wall forms a frangible connection at the first end of the tamper-evident foldable section (Marshall, Fig 20, 24 is shown frangibly connected). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Albrecht further teaches the inner wall (Fig 6, 24) includes a retention projection extending outwardly to initially assist in securing the lid and the container (Figs 6 & 21, a retention projection extending outwardly that assists in securing the lid is shown as “seal rim rib 26”).
Regarding claim 10, Albrecht/Marshall does not explicitly teach a particular thickness of the outer wall is from 0.01 to 0.10 inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at 0.01 to 0.10 inch thickness of outer wall, recognizing that an increase in thickness is directly correlated to an increase in tamper resistance which reduces fingernail breaking (Marshall, [0005]) from tamper attempts and decreases risk of inadvertent outer wall destruction, both of which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 11 and 19 (similar limitation, different dependency), Albrecht/Marshall does not explicitly teach a particular thickness of the outer wall is from 0.02 to 0.05 inch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at 0.02 to 0.05 inch thickness of outer wall, recognizing that an increase in thickness is directly correlated to an increase in tamper resistance which reduces fingernail breaking (Marshall, [0005]) from tamper attempts and decreases risk of inadvertent outer wall destruction, both of which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Albrecht further teaches the container comprises an olefin ([0042] container 10 is “polypropylene” matches Applicant [0064] “polypropylene” which is an olefin).
Regarding claim 13, Marshall teaches a package (Fig 1, container 10 with lid 100) comprising:
a container including a sidewall (Fig 1, 12), a bottom (Fig 1, 16), and a rim or neck portion (Fig 6, “rim 24” with skirt 18 is a neck portion of the container 10 sidewall 12),
the sidewall of the container, the bottom, and the rim portion being integrally formed or connected with each other (Fig 6, 12, 16, 24 and 18 are integrally formed together), at least a portion of the sidewall of the container being located between the bottom and the rim portion (Fig 6, at least a portion of 12 is shown between 16 and 24/18),
the rim portion (24 with 18) including an inner wall (Fig 6, an inner wall is 24) and an outer wall (Fig 6, an outer wall is rim 32 of 18), the inner wall and the outer wall being spaced from each other and connected to each other by an extension (Fig 6, an extension portion is shown spacing and connecting 24 from 32/18); and
a lid (Fig 1, 100) including a top portion and a sidewall extending therefrom (Fig 9, a top portion is wall 114 and a sidewall is skirt 106), wherein
an interior opening of the container is defined by the inner wall of the rim portion, the sidewall of the container, and the bottom (Fig 6, an interior opening of the container is shown defined by 24, 12 and 16), wherein an exterior opening is formed between the inner wall, the outer wall and the extension (Fig 6, an exterior opening is defined between 24, 32 and their connecting extension), the exterior opening being sized and configured to receive the sidewall of the lid (Figs 21, a sidewall 106 of a lid 100 is shown received in the exterior opening), wherein the outer wall has
a tamper-evident section (Figs 1 & 22, a tamper-evident section of 32/18 is tear tab 14),
But Albrecht does not explicitly teach that the tamper evident section is foldable.
Marshall, however, teaches a similar tamper evident container, that also similarly reveals the lid sidewall for opening the lid by removing a portion of the rim portion, comprising:
a tamper-evident foldable section (Fig 20, [0032], an integral tamper-evident foldable section of a rim portion 12 is detent tab 20), the tamper-evident foldable section having a first end and a second end (Fig 20, a first end of 20 is proximal 24, and a second end of 20 is proximal 32), the first end of the tamper-evident foldable section being configured to fold back toward and secure to a second end of the tamper-evident foldable section so as to expose the sidewall of the lid (Figs 4 & 21 & 24-25, the first end 24 of 20 is folded back and secured to the second end 32, thereby exposing sidewall 28 of the lid 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tamper evident section of Albrecht to be foldable as taught by Marshall in order to advantageously retain the section versus littering of a completely removable section like Albrecht, while still reliably exposing the lid rim for lifting and evidencing tampering like Albrecht, but also beneficially allow the retained tab to unfold to once again protect/block the lid sidewall from jostling open.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the section of Albrecht such that it is foldable as it is no more than a simple substitution of one tamper evidence in the rim for another that is known in the art for evidencing tampering and would only produce the predictable results of the main function of exposing the lid sidewall for opening the lid. MPEP 2143 I-B.
(wherein Marshall teaches related elements in light of dependent claims:
Fig 25, an outward projection is stud 32; Fig 25, [0080], a slot opening is “a port” that is shown registering with 32; projection shown received within the opening after 20 is folded; [0078] “the lid assembly is placed over a container 12 and snapped into place”;
Fig 19 shows that 20 extends at least 2 percent around the rim circumference;
Fig 20, 24 is shown frangibly connected;
[0078] “the lid assembly is placed over a container 12 and snapped into place”;
32 is on the first end and the slot is on the second end)
Regarding claim 14, Albrecht further teaches the sidewall (106) of the lid includes a lid retention projection (Fig 21, a lid retention projection is seal rib 110) and wherein the sidewall (12) of the container includes a container retention projection (Fig 21, a container retention projection is seal rim rib 26), the lid retention projection and the container retention projection being configured to be secured to each other when the container and the lid are in an initially closed position (Fig 21, in a closed position 26 is shown engaging and thereby securing 110).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20070062948 by Albrecht et al. (hereinafter “Albrecht”) in view of US Pub 20040118848 by Marshall (hereinafter “Marshall”) in view of US Pub 20020125250 by Fang (hereinafter “Fang”).
Regarding claim 9, Albrecht/Marshall further teaches the retention projection (Albrecht, Fig 6, 26) is a snap-on retention projection (Marshall, [0078] “the lid assembly is placed over a container 12 and snapped into place”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
In addition, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Albrecht/Marshall does not teach the snap fit, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container rim and corresponding lid rim of Albrecht/Marshall with a snap fit structure as taught by Fang (Fig 2, [0021], container snapping flange 16 securely snapped to lid annular locking flange 21) in order to advantageously increase strength of sealing of the lid versus jostling over an otherwise weaker contact friction fit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733