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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 17 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 17 recites the limitation "the polyethylene terephthalate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 21, Evans teaches a cylindrical container comprising a composite lid of comprising an outer metal lid having and integral top wall and sidewall and an inner plastic lid having a top wall and sidewall fitted inside the outer metal lid (Abstract and Figures 1 and 8, reproduced below along with Figures 1F and 4 of the current invention). Evans teaches that air can escape via a vertical vent groove (Item 223) (paragraph 0030), and Evans teaches the use of a tight, friction-fitted lid (paragraph 0026). Evans teaches a projection on the lid and a projection on the base act to retain the lid on the body (Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
485
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
337
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Evans teaches a plastic lid having an inwardly extending projection 268 forming a locking bead for attaching the composite lid to the base (paragraph 0034 and Figure 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
336
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Evans does not disclose the use of a plurality of discrete projections arranged circumferentially around the connection rim.
Lecinski teaches a composite closure incorporating lugs (discrete projections) or threads (continuous projections) (Items 16 and 30) in a conventional container with a lid (Abstract, page 1, lines 122-128).
PNG
media_image5.png
632
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given that Evans and Lecinski are drawn to containers with removable lids and given that Lecinski discloses the equivalence and interchangeability of using the lugs (discrete projections) and threads (continuous projections) taught by Lecinski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate lugs (discrete projections) as taught by Lecinski in the container taught by Evans. Since Evans and Lecinski are both drawn to containers with removable lids, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating lugs (discrete projections) in place of the continuous projection in the container taught by Evans, since Lecinski teaches that lugs (discrete projections) and threads/continuous projections are functionally equivalent to the continuous projections taught by Evans. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the slugs (discrete projections) and threads (continuous projections) taught by Lecinski can be substituted one for the other in the container taught by Evans.
Evans teaches the base (body) is formed by molding a polymer material (paragraph 0003).
Evans in view of Lecinski does not disclose the use of polyethylene terephthalate in his base (body).
Rousselet teaches a container for packaging a product in which the external shell is formed of polyethylene terephthalate (Abstract and paragraph 0018).
Given that Evans and Rousselet are drawn to containers for packaging consumer products in which the shell/base/body is made of polymeric material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene terephthalate as taught by Rousselet for the polymeric material from which to form the base/body of the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski. Since Evans and Rousselet are both drawn to containers for consumer products in which the shell/base/body is made of polymeric material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using polyethylene terephthalate as taught by Rousselet as the polymeric material to form the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski. Further, Rousselet teaches making the shell/base/body of polyethylene terephthalate would result in a substantially transparent shell/base/body (paragraph 0018).
Additionally, Van Hulle teaches the use polyethylene terephthalate as the material for the main body of a container, and he teaches the polyethylene terephthalate is commonly used as a packaging material for foods or pharmaceuticals (Abstract and paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 7, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Halle teaches the elements of claim 1.
Evans does not disclose more than one row of projections, whereas Lecinski does teach the inclusion of multiple rows of lugs (discrete projections) or threads (continuous projections) (Figures 2 and 3).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use additional projections in order to provide improved tightness of fit of the lid and sealing of the container. The duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. Providing additional rows of projections (lugs or threads) would have achieved expected results such as tightness of fit and sealing of the container. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378,380 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle) and further in view of Bried et al. (US Patent Application 2010/0307113 A1, published 09 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Bried).
Regarding claim 9, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose a film seal between the body and the lid.
Bried teaches that his tobacco package includes a gasket (film seal) between a container and a lid (paragraph 0005).
Given that Evans and Bried are drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers with lids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gasket (film seal) as taught by Bried in the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Bried are both drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in including a gasket (film seal) as taught by Bried in the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Bried teaches that the gasket improves the product freshness both during shelf life and during consumer use, and the gasket (film seal) serves as a moisture barrier that retains a substantial portion of the moisture characteristics of the tobacco product (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claims 13-14, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose the material of construction of the main body of his container.
Bried teaches a tobacco product package device comprising a container and lid, in which the container comprises a material such as a polymer, such as polypropylene, fiberboard, or metallic material (paragraph 0031).
Given that Evans and Bried are drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers with lids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the main body from one of the materials taught by Bried, including polypropylene or fiberboard, in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Bried are both drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using one of the materials taught by Bried, including polypropylene or fiberboard, in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Bried teaches that these materials, including polypropylene or fiberboard, are suitable for storing tobacco products having one or more flavorants or volatile agents (paragraph 0031).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle) and further in view of Rushforth et al. (US Patent Application 2018/0007957 A1, published 11 Jan. 2018, hereinafter Rushforth) and further in view of Pipes et al. (US Patent Application 2014/0197054 A1, published 17 Jul. 2014, hereinafter Pipes).
Regarding claims 10-12, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1, and Evans teaches the outer metal lid is made from steel sheet, such as tin-plate (paragraph 0035).
It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tin-plate is tin-plated steel.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose the material of construction of the main body of his container.
Rushforth teaches his tobacco container can be made from a metal, such as aluminum or tin (Abstract and paragraph 0031).
Given that Evans and Rushford are drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers with lids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the main body from one of the materials taught by Rushford in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Rushford are both drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using one of the materials taught by Rushford in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Rushford teaches these materials are sufficiently rigid for this application (paragraph 0031).
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Rushford does not specifically disclose tin-free steel nor tin-plated steel as a material of construction of the body taught by Evans in view of Rushford.
Pipes teaches the base of his container is made of tin, aluminum, steel, or tin coated steel plate (paragraph 0037).
Given that Evans, Rushford, and Pipes are all drawn to tobacco containers with lids and bodies, Evans teaches lids for containers made of sheet steel, Rushford teaches container bodies made of aluminum or tin, Pipes teaches the use and interchangeability of tin, aluminum, steel, and tin coated steel plate as materials of construction for his container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the base from either steel (that is, tin-free steel), tin-plated steel, aluminum, or tin as taught by Pipes as part of the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Rushford. Since Evans, Rushford, and Pipes are both drawn to tobacco containers with lids and bodies, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using steel (that is, tin-free steel), tin-plated steel, aluminum, or tin as taught by Pipes as the material of construction of the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Rushford, since Pipes teaches that steel (that is, tin-free steel), tin-plated steel, aluminum, or tin are functionally equivalent and interchangeable as materials of construction of the body in a tobacco container. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that steel (that is, tin-free steel), tin-plated steel, aluminum, or tin can be substituted one for the other as materials of construction of the body in the tobacco container of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Rushford.
Regarding claim 13, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose the material of construction of the main body of his container.
Rushforth teaches his tobacco container can be made from a polymer, such as polypropylene or polyethylene (Abstract and paragraph 0031).
Given that Evans and Rushford are drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers with lids, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the main body from polypropylene or polyethylene as taught by Rushford in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Rushford are both drawn to cylindrically-shaped tobacco containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using polypropylene or polyethylene as taught by Rushford in forming the container taught by Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Rushford teaches these materials are sufficiently rigid and lightweight for this application (paragraph 0031).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle) and further in view of Collins (WO 1998/52833, published 26 Nov. 1998, hereinafter Collins).
Regarding claim 15, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1, and Evans teaches a composite lid with an inner plastic lid (Abstract).
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose the specific plastic resins.
Collins teaches a cap with an outer metal shell and an inner plastic gasket made of polypropylene (Abstract and page 5, lines 24-30). Collins teaches the gasket is injection molded and can be made of polypropylene, polypropylene/nylon blends, or thermoplastic elastomers (page 2, lines 15-21).
It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that polypropylene is a thermoplastic.
Given that Evans and Collins are drawn to metal-plastic composite lids or caps for packaging, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polypropylene as taught by Collins as the material for the inner plastic lid of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Collins are both drawn to metal-plastic composite lids or caps for packaging, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using the polypropylene as taught by Collins as the material for the inner plastic lid of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Collins teaches that these materials have the desired flexural modulus for this application (page 2, lines 15-21).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle) and further in view of Collins (WO 1998/52833, published 26 Nov. 1998, hereinafter Collins) and further in view of Weiner (US Patent 4,291092, published 22 Sep. 1981, hereinafter Weiner).
Regarding claim 16, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1, and, as presented above, Collins teaches the use of polypropylene as the plastic for the interior of a composite cap.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Collins does not teach a thermal lamination material between the polypropylene inner layer and the outer metal layer.
Weiner teaches a heat-sealable surface layer comprising a copolymer of ethylene and a higher olefin on a substrate layer of polypropylene (Abstract). Weiner teaches that the surface layer is selected so it melts at lower temperature than the underlying substrate (col. 1, lines 42-46).
It is the examiner’s position that the material in a heat-seal layer is a thermal lamination material.
Given that Collins and Weiner are both drawn to polypropylene articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the polyethylene copolymer heat seal layer on polypropylene as taught by Weiner to thermally bond the outer metal lid (layer) to the plastic lid (layer) of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Collins. Since Collins are Weiner are both drawn to polypropylene substrates, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using the polyethylene copolymer heat seal layer as taught by Weiner as a means of joining the plastic lid (layer) to the metal lid (layer) of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle and further in view of Collins. Further, Weiner teaches that the co-extrusion of a surface of the substrate is less costly than a separate coating step (col. 1, lines 42-45).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Patent Application 2019/0202608 A1, published 04 Jul. 2019, hereinafter Evans) in view of Lecinski (GB 2122178 A, published 11 Jan. 1984, hereinafter Lecinski) and further in view of Rousselet (US Patent Application 2008/0023491 A1, published 31 Jan. 2008, hereinafter Rousselet) and further in view of Van Hulle et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0043165 A1, published 04 Mar. 2004, hereinafter Van Hulle) and further in view of Georgalas et al. (US Patent 4,600,737, published 15 Jul. 1986, hereinafter Georgalas).
Regarding claims 18-19, Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle teaches the elements of claim 1.
Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle does not disclose the inclusion of an enamel layer.
Georgalas teaches the use of a polymer coating comprising an epoxy resin and a phenolic resin for the interior of food containers (Abstract). Thus, this coating would be used as the outermost layer, so the plastic lid (layer) would be between the metal lid (layer) and this epoxy-phenolic resin coating.
Given that Evans and Georgalas are drawn to consumer packaging, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the epoxy-phenolic resin coating on the interior surface as taught by Georgalas on the plastic lid (layer) of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Since Evans and Georgalas are both drawn to consumer packaging for food/substances placed inside one’s mouth, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using the epoxy-phenolic resin coating as taught by Georgalas on the interior surface of the plastic lid (layer) of the composite lid of Evans in view of Lecinski and further in view of Rousselet and further in view of Van Hulle. Further, Georgalas teaches that his coating meets the stringent requirements of food container coatings (col. 1, lines 41-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowable.
Evans, Rushford, Pipes, Bried, Collins, Weiner, Georgalas, Rousselet, Van Hulle, and Lecinski do not teach that the polymer layer includes polyethylene terephthalate and additionally polypropylene, polyethylene, or any combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Jan. 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection, which are presented above.
Applicant amended claims 1, 7, and 17, cancelled claims 13 and 15, and added claim 21.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not teach the amended claim 1.
However, as presented above, the amended claim 1 is rejected with additional prior art references that teach the use of polyethylene terephthalate in the outer housing of containers.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is 571-272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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 VINCENT LAWLER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787