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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 18 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions a device (claim 18) and a container (claim 10) are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case the product can be made by a materially different apparatus such as a human hand and not a device, which is defined as a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, especially a mechanical or electrical one. (dictionary.com).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 18 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 10-14 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 10 recites the limitation "the rim" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for –a rim of the container--.
Claims 11-14 depend from claim 10.
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) 1-6, 9-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0010663) in view of Maddox (US 1,597,238).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: Method for producing a container comprising fibers with a rim comprising fibers, wherein the method comprises: - molding a container comprising fibers using fiber-containing pulp, wherein the container comprises a mouth region with a mouth opening, comprising - providing a rim on an outer side of the mouth region using fiber-containing pulp wherein the rim is provided for the purpose of arranging a lid thereon, and wherein the rim serves as a type of support ring as a counterpart to a holding device for holding the container below the rim if desired (see figure 1 above and [0039]-[0053] of Chen et al.).
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Maddox:
Maddox teaches the provision of providing a lid 1 for closing the mouth opening 7, the lid 1 comprising an upper part (top central part of 1) and a U-shaped form opposite to the rim, for closing the mouth opening, the U- shaped form (form were define by where 1 and 3 form a U) projecting from an underside of the upper part 1 in such a way that it at least partially may encompass the rim 7, the U-shaped form additionally comprising a lid opening (opening for sliding onto the rim), which is arranged on the open side of the U (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify container method of Chen et al. with a lid as taught by Maddox in order to close the container when filled with an item (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox).
In re claim 2: the rim is provided at least partially circumferentially (see figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 3: the rim is provided in such a way that its cross section is rectangular, triangular, polygonal or trapezoidal, in each case with one or more rounded corners, at least partially semi-oval or semi-elliptical (see figures 1-3 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 4: an upper edge of the rim is provided flush with the mouth opening, or wherein the upper edge of the rim is provided at a distance from the mouth opening (see figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 5: the rim is provided during the molding of the container, wherein, the fiber-containing pulp for the container and the rim is the same (see figures 1 and 4 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 6: the lid 1 comprises dry fiber-containing pulp, cardboard and/or carton (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use dry fiber-containing pulp, cardboard and/or carton as a similar equivalent material to paper mâché in order to provide a low-cost recyclable lid. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re claim 9: wherein closing comprises arranging the lid 1 as a recurring closure when used multiple times (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox).
In re claim 10: Chen et al. discloses a container comprising fibers comprises a mouth region with a mouth opening, wherein the container comprising fibers is produced by molding the container comprising fibers using fiber-containing pulp, a rim on an outer side of the mouth region using the fiber-containing pulp; and wherein the rim is provided for (can be used for) the purpose of arranging a lid thereon, and wherein the rim serves as a type of support ring as a counterpart to a holding device for holding the container below the rim (see figure 1 above and [0039]-[0053] of Chen et al.).
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Maddox:
Maddox teaches the provision of providing a lid 1 for closing the mouth opening 7, the lid 1 comprising an upper part (top central part of 1) and a U-shaped form opposite to the rim, for closing the mouth opening, the U- shaped form (form were define by where 1 and 3 form a U) projecting from an underside of the upper part 1 in such a way that it at least partially may encompass the rim 7, the U-shaped form additionally comprising a lid opening (opening for sliding onto the rim), which is arranged on the open side of the U (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify container method of Chen et al. with a lid as taught by Maddox in order to close the container when filled with an item (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox).
In re claim 11: the rim is at least partially circumferential, wherein the rim is formed protruding radially (see figures 1-3 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 12: a cross section of the rim is rectangular, triangular, polygonal or trapezoidal, in each case with one or more rounded corners, at least partially semi-oval or semi-elliptical (see figures 1-3 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 13: an upper edge of the rim terminates flush with the mouth opening, or wherein the upper edge of the rim has a distance from the mouth opening (see figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al,).
In re claim 14: the lid 1 comprises dry fiber-containing pulp, cardboard and/or carton (see pg.2, ll.47-51 and figures 2 and 5 of Maddox). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use dry fiber-containing pulp, cardboard and/or carton as a similar equivalent material to paper mâché in order to provide a low-cost recyclable lid. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re claim 17: the rim is provided protruding radially (see figures 1 and 2 of Chen et al,).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the newly added amendment to claim 1, The added limitation is considered an indented use limitation which is not added a step to the method of producing a container but only adds what the container can be used for and with this in mind, the structure of the prior art is fully capable of meeting this intended use. Similar to claim 1, the newly added amendment to claim 10, is also just an intended use limitation which is not adding any structure that defines over the applied prior art. Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735