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 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 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 26, “the abutment” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it is referring to.
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, 21-22, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,947,278 to Sawhney et al. (Sawhney) in view of US Patent No. 11,794,966 to Orjuela et al. (Orjuela) and US 2021/0198015 to Kui.
Regarding claim 1, Sawhney discloses a container (10, Fig 1) comprising a tray (12) comprising a bottom wall (12b), a peripheral side wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall (12b) and terminating in a flange (42) that at least partially defines an open top, the flange (42), without an undercut, defining an uninterrupted channel (38) with a continuously decreasing width (col. 6, ll. 50-65) defined by spaced inner (38b) and outer (38a) channel walls connected by a bottom channel wall (38c), a cover (20) closing the open top in a closed configuration (Fig 5), the cover including a protrusion (52) biased against at least one of the inner channel wall or outer channel wall (38a, 38b) and forming a sealing interface between the protrusion and at least one of the inner or outer channel wall (col. 6, ll. 55-60), the protrusion residing within the channel. Sawhney does not teach the container being pulp-molded. However, Orjuela discloses a hinged food container (Fig 1a) and in particular discloses it was known in the art to manufacture the container out of molded pulp (col. 11, ll. 25-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the Sawhney container of molded pulp as suggested by Orjuela in order to facilitate recycling since it has been held that selection of a known material to make a container of a type of material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Sawhney does not teach the protrusion being resilient and having a terminal end flexible from unflexed to flex configuration, terminal end biased by flex configuration against channel wall. However, Kui discloses a container comprising a tray (102) and cover (104) and in particular discloses the cover (104) comprising a resilient protrusion (118) having a terminal end (56) flexible from unflexed to flexed configuration, the protrusion residing within the channel (112) in closed configuration (Fig 19b) and terminal end biased by flexed configuration against one of the inner or outer channel wall and forming a seal interface (€0049, snapping engagement). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the end of the Sawhney protrusion terminate within the channel as suggested by Kui if the part of the cover outside the channel was not desired since it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Regarding claim 21, Sawhney further discloses the protrusion (52) comprising an inner resilient member (52b) corresponding to inner channel wall (38b), outer resilient member (52a) corresponding to outer channel wall (38a), terminal end extends laterally from outer resilient member when protrusion is not within channel and terminal end deflected along outer channel wall when protrusion is received within the channel since the protrusion is flexible and forms a seal with the container.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Sawhney teaches the terminal end residing below open top of the channel (112) and above bottom channel wall (Fig 19b, Kui).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Sawhney further teaches the protrusion having a width measured from terminal end greater than the channel when protrusion is outside the channel since the protrusion flexes outward when outside the channel.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Sawhney further teaches channel and protrusion have different cross-sections because they have different sizes.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Sawhney further teaches abutment between terminal end and channel wall forming sealing interface (Kui, €0045).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawhney in view of Orjuela, Kui and US 2004/0065424 to Mohan et al. (Mohan).
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified Sawhney teaches the container of claim 1 but does not teach the recited surface roughness. Mohan discloses surface roughness of paperboard material to be in the range as recited (abstract) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the roughness of the modified Sawhney container to lie in the range recited as suggested by Mohan in order to facilitate engagement with the lid.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawhney in view of Orjuela, Kui and US 2019/0119017 to Landan et al. (Landan).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sawhney teaches the container of claim 26 and further teaches protrusion (52, Sawhney) in contact with inner and outer channel walls (38a, 38b) but does not teach protrusion spaced from bottom channel wall. However, Landan discloses a container (100, Fig 1) and in particular discloses a protrusion (116) from a cover (102) spaced from bottom channel wall (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to space the protrusion of Sawhney from the bottom channel wall as suggested by Landan in order to facilitate opening of the cover by leaving a gap.
Claim(s) 1, 5-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0198015 to Kui in view of Sawhney and Orjuela.
Regarding claim 1, Kui discloses a container (100, Fig 12) comprising a tray (102) comprising a bottom wall, a peripheral side wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall (Fig 13) and terminating in a flange (116) that at least partially defines an open top, the flange (116) defining a channel (112) with a continuously decreasing width defined by spaced inner and outer channel walls connected by a bottom channel wall (Fig 19b), a cover (104) closing the open top in a closed configuration (Fig 18), the cover including a resilient protrusion (118) having a terminal end flexible from unflexed configuration to flexed configuration (snapping engagement), in closed configuration, the resilient protrusion resides within the channel (112) (Fig 19b) and the terminal end is biased by the flexed configuration against at least one of the inner or outer channel wall (at 116, Fig 19b) and forming a sealing interface between the protrusion and the inner or outer channel wall (€0049). Kui does not teach the flange without an undercut and the channel being uninterrupted. However, Sawhney discloses a container (10, Fig 1) comprising a tray (12) comprising a bottom wall (12b), a peripheral side wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall (12b) and terminating in a flange (42) that at least partially defines an open top, the flange (42), without an undercut, defining an uninterrupted channel (38) with a continuously decreasing width (col. 6, ll. 50-65) defined by spaced inner (38b) and outer (38a) channel walls connected by a bottom channel wall (38c), a cover (20) closing the open top in a closed configuration (Fig 5), the cover including a protrusion (52) biased against at least one of the inner channel wall or outer channel wall (38a, 38b) and forming a sealing interface between the protrusion and at least one of the inner or outer channel wall (col. 6, ll. 55-60). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the channel of Kui without an undercut and being uninterrupted as suggested by Sawhney in order to facilitate connection with the cover since it has been held that omission of an element and it function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The modified Kui does not teach the container being pulp-molded. However, Orjuela discloses a hinged food container (Fig 1a) and in particular discloses it was known in the art to manufacture the container out of molded pulp (col. 11, ll. 25-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the Kui container of molded pulp as suggested by Orjuela in order to facilitate recycling since it has been held that selection of a known material to make a container of a type of material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Kui further discloses the container (12) having a U-shaped channel (112) and opens upward and a protrusion (118) that is J-shaped and opens upward to fit in the channel with the terminal end located at free end of the J-shape (Fig 19b).
Regarding claim 6, Kui further discloses distance between inner channel wall and outer channel wall defines a channel width and in unflexed configuration, width of the protrusion (118) is greater than channel width since it snaps into the channel.
Regarding claim 7, Kui further discloses insertion of protrusion (118) into channel flexes protrusion from unflexed configuration to flexed configuration such that protrusion applies a biasing force against outer channel wall (€0049).
Regarding claim 8, Kui further discloses in flexed configuration of the protrusion (118), the protrusion applies an inward force to inner channel wall and applies an outward force to outer channel wall relative to center of tray (€0049).
Regarding claim 9, Kui further discloses in flexed configuration, terminal end of the protrusion (118) disposed in channel below top of outer channel wall (Fig 19b).
Regarding claim 10, Kui further discloses outer channel wall defining an outer channel wall length between bottom channel wall and top of outer channel wall, in flexed configuration, outer edge of protrusion (118) is aligned between 65 and 75 percent of the outer channel wall length (see Fig 19b). In the instance the drawings do not show the recited percentage range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the length of the outer edge of the protrusion to lie in the range as recited in order to facilitate sealing since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Kui further discloses at least one inner or outer channel wall is planar (Fig 19b).
Regarding claim 12, Kui further discloses inner and outer channel wall being planar, bottom channel wall having a planar portion and pair of curved portions extending from planar portion and connected to inner and outer channel walls (Fig 19b).
Regarding claim 13, Kui further discloses in flexed configuration protrusion (118) and channel (112) cooperate to provide a liquid seal between tray and cover (€0049).
Regarding claim 14, Kui further discloses outer channel wall shorter than inner channel wall (Fig 19b).
Regarding claim 15, Kui further discloses protrusion including an outer resilient member (A, Fig 19b below) that defines an outer resilient member plane, terminal end extending at an angle relative to outer resilient member plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kui further discloses wherein the inner channel wall is vertical or angled such that a bottom portion of the inner channel wall angles away from peripheral side wall and wherein outer channel wall is vertical or angled such that a bottom portion of the outer channel wall is angled toward peripheral side wall (Fig 19a-b).
Regarding claim 19, Kui further discloses cover (104) has a rectangular configuration (Fig 18) and container devoid of plastic since Kui is silent regarding plastic in the container. In the instance that there is plastic in the container, it would have been obvious to remove it such that there was no plastic if one did not want it since it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Regarding claim 20, Kui further discloses hinge (106) rotatable connecting tray (102) with the cover (104).
Claim(s) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kui in view of Sawhney, Orjuela and Landan.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kui teaches the container of claim 9 and further teaches in flexed configuration, the protrusion (118) is in contact with inner and outer channel walls but does not teach the protrusion not in contact with bottom channel wall. However, Landan discloses a container (106) and in particular discloses the container (106) having a channel (126) that fits with a protrusion (116) on lid (102), the protrusion not in contact with bottom channel wall when in closed configuration (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the protrusion of Kui not in contact with bottom channel wall as suggested by Landan in order to facilitate sealing.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kui teaches the container of claim 1 but does not teach an outer flange wall as recited. However, Landan discloses a container (106) and in particular discloses flange having an outer flange wall extending downward from top (125) of outer channel wall such that outer flange wall is spaced from outer channel wall, outer channel wall and outer flange wall disposed in U-shaped configuration that opens downward (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an outer flange wall to the modified Kui as suggested by Landan in order to further deter unauthorized opening of the container (€0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 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 it would not be obvious to manufacture the prior art containers out of pulp molded material since the prior art only teaches manufacturing the containers out of plastic. This is not persuasive since the prior art does not restrict the containers to only be made from plastic and there is no suggestion in the prior art that the containers cannot be made from other materials and still achieve their intended functions. Applicant argues that one cannot form complex shapes of plastic containers using pulp molded fiber because a pulp molded container lacks elasticity of plastic. However, this is not persuasive because Orjuela explicitly discloses a container of complex shape made of molded pulp fiber.
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teach a resilient protrusion with a terminal end that flexes to generate a biasing force that presses the terminal end into the channel wall to form a sealing surface. This is not persuasive because the prior art teaches snapping engagement between the cover and container and thus teaches the protrusion being resilient enough to generate a biasing force to press against channel wall in order to seal the cover to the container. In particular, Kui discloses the cover and container to be sealed and thus would have to be through frictional engagement since the protrusion only prevents the cover from popping out of the groove.
Applicant argues that Kui would not be able to mold the protuberance if the container of Kui were pulp molded. However, Sawhney suggests a channel without a protuberance and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the channel of Kui without an undercut and being uninterrupted as suggested by Sawhney in order to facilitate connection with the cover since it has been held that omission of an element and it function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The modification would have resulted in no protuberance in the channel of Kui and thus Kui as modified by Sawhney would be capable of being made from molded pulp since it would not have an undercut. Applicant further argues that Kui does not teach terminal end of the projection being resilient such that it biases the terminal end into the channel wall to form a sealing interface. This is not persuasive because Kui discloses that the cover is snap fitted to the container and thus must be made of resilient material. Kui also discloses the cover and container are sealed together and in order for the cover and container to be sealed together, the parts of the cover contacting the container must exert a biasing force to create the seal.
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