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 § 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnette (US-20120305560-A1) in view of Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, Minnette discloses a container (Fig. 1) comprising: a lid (14) comprising a top (26), a sidewall (34), lid rim (36), and a skirt (34) extending downwardly from the lid rim; and a base (12) comprising a base rim (53) and a base flange (56) extending outwardly from the base rim (Fig. 7); wherein the skirt overlaps the base flange when the container is in a closed configuration (Fig. 9), a sealing ring (52) extending inwardly from a segment to an apex that causes the sealing ring to engage the base flange to seal the lid to the base in the closed configuration, wherein a plurality of cut-outs (40) are formed in the sealing ring that alleviate concentration of friction between the sealing ring and the base flange when a force is applied to separate the lid from the base (par. 0024), wherein the lid includes a tab (38) extending outwardly (upward is also outwards relative to the skirt) from the skirt, and the plurality of cut-outs includes a first cut-out spaced a distance from one end of the tab and a second cut-out spaced a distance from another end of the tab (Fig. 2), wherein the first cut-out is defined at least partially by a flat segment of the skirt (at 34) that extends substantially vertically and downwardly between a segment and an outwardly extending flange of the lid (flange around 40), the flat segment being positioned outwardly from the apex (Fig. 5), wherein the first and second cut-outs are formed in a mirrored relationship, and spaced equal distances from the respective end of the tab (Figs. 1-3, cut outs orthogonal to the tab), wherein an opening is formed in the skirt along a region spanned circumferentially by the tab (Fig. 2, at the cut outs), wherein the plurality of cut-outs includes a third cut-out formed in the sealing ring along a region spanned by the tab.
Minnette fails to teach the lid sidewall extending downwardly from the top, a lid rim projecting outwardly from the lid sidewall the skirt including a first segment extending downwardly and outwardly from the lid rim and a second segment extending downwardly and inwardly from the first segment to a sealing ring, wherein the lid rim is in face-to-face contact with the base rim.
Short teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a top (504), a lid sidewall (508) extending downwardly from the top, a lid rim (512) projecting outwardly from the lid sidewall, and a skirt (at 516, Fig. 7B) including a first segment (516) extending downwardly and outwardly from the lid rim and a second segment (538) extending downwardly and inwardly from the first segment to a sealing ring, wherein lid rim is in face-to-face contact with a base rim (Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with the shape taught by Short, in order to adjust for different spaces, since such a modification would be the use of known lid shapes and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Minnette fails to teach wherein the cut-outs are arcuate with the claimed sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cut-outs with the claimed size and shape, since the cut-outs would still function the same for opening the lid and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfirrmann Jr. et al. (US-5915581-A) in view of Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1).
Regarding claims 12-16, Pfirrmann disclose a lid (14) for a container, the lid comprising a top (at 57), a lid sidewall (58) extending downwardly from the top, a lid rim (at 80) projecting outwardly from the lid sidewall, the lid rim being sized and shaped to complement and engage in face-to-face contact with a base rim a base rim of a base the container (Fig. 7), a skirt (82) extending downwardly from the lid rim, a lid flange (Fig. 11, below 84) and a tab (90) each extending outwardly from the skirt, wherein a first portion of the skirt extends downwardly between the lid rim and a contact region of the skirt, the contact region forming a location along the skirt that engages a base flange of the base, and a second portion of the skirt extends downwardly from the contact region to the lid flange and the tab (Fig. 11), the second portion defining an inwardly-extending sealing ring (solid edge at 84), wherein a plurality of elongate cut-outs (84) are formed in the inwardly-extending sealing ring, wherein the plurality of elongate cut-outs includes a first elongate cut-out spaced a distance from one end of the tab and a second elongate cut-out spaced a distance from another end of the tab (Fig. 5), wherein the first and second elongate cut-outs are formed in a mirrored relationship, and spaced equal distances from the respective end of the tab (Fig. 6), wherein the plurality of elongate cut-outs includes a third elongate cut-out formed in the sealing ring along a region spanned by the tab (Fig. 7, below 90), and wherein an opening is formed in the skirt along a region spanned circumferentially by the tab (Fig. 8).
Pfirrmann fails to teach the skirt including a first segment extending downwardly and outwardly from the lid rim and a second segment extending downwardly and inwardly from the first segment to a sealing ring.
Short teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a top (504), a lid sidewall (508) extending downwardly from the top, a lid rim (512) projecting outwardly from the lid sidewall, and a skirt (at 516, Fig. 7B) including a first segment (516) extending downwardly and outwardly from the lid rim and a second segment (538) extending downwardly and inwardly from the first segment to a sealing ring, wherein lid rim is in face-to-face contact with a base rim (Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with the shape taught by Short, in order to adjust for different spaces, since such a modification would be the use of known lid shapes and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Pfirrmann fails to teach wherein the cut-outs are arcuate with the claimed sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the cut-outs with the claimed size and shape, since the cut-outs would still function the same for securing the lid and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnette (US-20120305560-A1) and Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1) in view of Zettle et al. (US-6168044-B1)
Minnette fails to teach wherein the skirt includes a series of outwardly-punched notches formed in the sealing ring, or wherein the sealing ring is formed by a series of inwardly-punched notches formed in the skirt, and wherein the lid is formed of one of a molded fiber material and a plastic material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyethylene terephthalate.
Zettle teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a sealing ring as inward and outward notches (at 80a, 82a, Fig. 5), and wherein a container can be molded from a plastic material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyethylene terephthalate (col. 1, ll. 65 – col. 2, ll. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the lid with notches, as taught by Zettle, in order to reduce the amount of material and since such a modification would be the use of a known sealing construction for using on a lid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid out of the claimed plastic material, in order to adjust costs 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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfirrmann Jr. et al. (US-5915581-A) and Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1) in view of Zettle et al. (US-6168044-B1).
Pfirrmann fails to teach wherein the skirt includes a series of outwardly-punched notches formed in the sealing ring, or wherein the sealing ring is formed by a series of inwardly-punched notches formed in the skirt.
Zettle teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a sealing ring as inward and outward notches (at 80a, 82a, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the lid with notches, as taught by Zettle, in order to reduce the amount of material and since such a modification would be the use of a known sealing construction for using on a lid.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnette (US-20120305560-A1) and Short et al. (US-20130101708-A1) in view of Koett (US-20200095034-A1).
Minnette fails to teach wherein the base is formed of a molded fiber material.
Koett teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container out of molded fiber (par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the container out of molded fiber, in order to make the container environmentally friendly 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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