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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 in response to Office Action 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that all combinations of record are hindsight (pages 6, 8-9, 12). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that there is never any teaching or motivation to combine (pages 7, 12 (para 1), 13). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see the rejection in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the motivations provided by the examiner would never be thought of, are factually incorrect, or have different function (pages 9 (paras 1 and 2), 14). In response to applicant's arguments, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Ramsey does not teach some claim limitations (pages 4, 7-8). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues the lugs/reliefs of Ramsey are non-helical (page 8). But the claim limitation does not mean the reliefs are themselves helical. Ramsey teaches the claim limitation “reliefs[/lugs] being arranged along a helical path corresponding to the pitch of the thread on the side wall of the mouth of the jar”. Applicant believes "reliefs being arranged along a helical path" is "reliefs forming a helical path". However, Ramsey's lugs are “along” the "helical path corresponding to the pitch of the [jar mouth] thread", as cited, because they engage in a corresponding pitch portion of the mouth helical thread. Therefore the lugs are “along” said “corresponding” mouth helical path pitch as claimed, and the reliefs do not have to be helically aligned themselves. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below, wherein Ramsey reads on the proper claim interpretation of “along”, and the modifications read on the argued intent of the reliefs forming a helical path.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Ramsey teaches planar lugs in Fig 6B (page 4, line 8 of #1). Examiner points out Ramsey’s specification paragraph [0034] is cited instead of Figure 6B, because there is no proof that the protrusions in Fig 6B are the specified lugs/reliefs from [0034]. There are unlabeled features. Fig 6B bottom view is an alternative lid [0043] (not in [0034]) wherein it is only disclosed that “From the top, the lid looks the same as previous embodiments”, and the next sentence says “FIGS. 6a and 6b show the top and underneath respectively of such a lid” but “such a lid” refers only to the “alternative lid”. Also according to the MPEP the drawing cannot be used to determine exact arrangements alone (e.g. because it’s not disclosed as “to scale”), and since Fig 6B is a perspective view it is especially unreliable.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that secondary prior art Sheng does not make cavities with corresponding reliefs formed by being punched in stainless steel, nor that they replace Ramsey’s lugs (pages 5-6, #2-#3). Examiner points out that Sheng teaches punching cavities with corresponding reliefs, and Corcoran teaches the material is stainless steel. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Ramsey/Sheng does not teach the amendment (which is simply inserted previous claim 4) of the lid reliefs being “substantially” the same height as their corresponding jar threading (page 7). Examiner points out that that “substantially” is a very broad term, and “the height” of the threading should be a height and thus also broad. Regardless, secondary prior art Northup now teaches the limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues that if Applicant’s bell-shaped relief were on Mason, Mason could not function (page 13, line seventh from last). Examiner points out that Mason’s bell-shaped relief can go in any location, as cited.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that optimization cannot be routine because their bell relief is critical for reducing buckling (page 14, line eight from last). Examiner points out that reducing buckling and stress concentration argued are not in the specification, therefore is not an argument that can be responded to.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4 from last “the height equal to the height of” should read “a height equal to a height of”.
Regarding claim 2, “the diameter” should read “a diameter”.
Regarding claim 8, middle line “the side wall height” should read “a side wall height”.
Regarding claim 8, last line “the base” should read “its base”.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, last line “the end plate” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, last line “the wall” of “the wall height” lacks antecedent basis. The side wall? The bell-shaped relief wall? Examiner interprets as “its height”.
Regarding claim 9, last line “the closure plane” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-2, 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20140103044 by Ramsey et al. (hereinafter “Ramsey”) in view of US Pat 4721220 issued to Northup (hereinafter “Northup”) in view of CN 108190219 issued to Sheng (hereinafter “Sheng”) in view of GB 2441327 issued to Corcoran (hereinafter “Corcoran”; from IDS 11/24/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ramsey teaches a lid (Fig 4, [0034], circular lid 1 with a top surface 2) for a preserving jar, said jar ([0035] lid 2 for glass mason jar is vacuum sealed; jar) being provided at the circular mouth with a thread ([0034]. [0039], since the circular lid threads on to the jar, a jar mouth necessarily is circular and has corresponding threads on a container neck side wall that “twist off in the normal fashion”) formed on the side wall thereof, and said lid comprising a circular closing plane (Fig 4, plane defined by 2) and a continuous cylindrical side wall (Fig 4, lid wall skirt 3 is contiguous/continuous on its own and with the circular closing plane, shown cylindrical), made of steel sheet piece ([0035] lid is steel; [0038] lid’s decimal-millimeter thickness is necessarily that of “sheet” type),
reliefs on the inner face ([0034] lid lug formations in the inner face of 3 are necessarily shaped as reliefs/protrusions by being lugs), and said reliefs being arranged along a helical path corresponding to the pitch of the thread on the side wall of the mouth of the jar ([0034] lid lug formations in 3 “that engage with helical threads on the container” neck/side wall, means the lug formation reliefs are arranged along at least a/one corresponding pitch portion of the jar’s full helical thread path (i.e. each lug is along at least a one pitch distance)), and wherein
said reliefs are substantially formed with a height (reliefs have a height), and said lid being provided with removable sealing means arranged on the inner surface of the closing plane (a rubber sealing compound is on an underside/inner surface of the lid’s closing plane 2 and is capable of removal; [0019] “sealing compound [14] may be provided on the underside of the removable lid, [and] The sealing compound may peel away”, and [0043] “there is an area of compound 14 underneath [of] rubber-type”).
But Ramsey does not explicitly teach a proportion of height between threads, such that “said reliefs are substantially formed with a height equal to a height of the threading on the side wall of the jar mouth”.
Northup, however, discloses lid segments/lugs (Figs 2 & 5, “thread segments 102-120”) aligned along/forming a helical path (“helical path 98”; col 5, line 63, “path 98 extends… 720 helical degrees”) corresponding to a container mouth helical path (Fig 2, “continuous screw thread 56”; col 3, lines 64-68, “56 is formed on the exterior surface of the neck 54 of the container on a helical path”, col 4, lines 3-4, “56… extending for… 720 helical degrees”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having also the considerations of Ramsey before them ([0034] “the inside walls of the skirt 3 comprise a helical thread that engages with a corresponding helical thread on a container. Alternatively, instead of a full helical thread being formed into the lid, there may be a number of formations or lugs that engage with helical threads on the container”), to modify the horizontally spaced lugs/reliefs of Ramsey to be formed/aligned in one helical path corresponding to the jar mouth helical path, and have the reliefs be of substantially equal height to the jar mouth thread (Northup, both are “720 helical degrees”), as it is no more than a simple substitution of one screw-thread type for another that is known in the art for securing a lid and would only produce the predictable results of securing the lid. MPEP 2143 I-B.
But Ramsey/Northup does not explicitly teach cavities behind/together with the lid reliefs.
Sheng, however, teaches a similar lid for a jar comprising:
a plurality of cavities on the outer face of said cylindrical side wall, corresponding to reliefs on the inner face, wherein said cavities, and corresponding reliefs, are formed by punching the side wall (Fig 1, direct punched metal ribs 2-2 into an outer face of the lid side wall forms reliefs along a helical path on an inner face of the lid side wall together with their cavities (shown) on the outer face (not shown); wherein “the inner screw thread structure [2-2 with 2-5] is set on the lower ring 2 several catch edge, or an inner screw thread structure is directly punched on the ring 2 in the thread” (page 3, lines 15-16 of the NPL English translation from the Office Action 3/14/2025) and “the cover inner wall of the ring is provided with an inner thread structure matched with the outer thread of the container” (Abstract); wherein
since the segmented thread path reliefs (at least three ribs 2-2) are “directly punched” into the lid side wall and are shown protruding inside, this punching necessarily causes a simultaneous cavity on the backside of each relief (i.e. on the lid side wall outer face of rib 2-2; for example rib 2-2 is not a solid extrusion but a hollow punch feature)).
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 reliefs of Ramsey/Northup to be relief-cavities (as claimed) in the lid side wall as taught by Sheng in order to advantageously increase ease of opening and closing the lid by providing grip enhancing indents/cavities on the outer face of the lid cylindrical side wall versus an otherwise smoother surface.
But Ramsey/Northup/Sheng does not explicitly teach the lid steel being particularly stainless steel.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ramsey, Sheng and Corcoran (Corcoran, Abstract, a lid cover portion of rim 14 is “stainless steel”) before them at the time the application was filed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (e.g. to select a stainless type of steel for food and environment non-reactivity). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention including the limitation “said reliefs are substantially formed with a height equal to a height of the threading on the side wall of the jar mouth”, since the stainless steel sheet jar lid reliefs (Ramsey/Corcoran) are instead punched relief-cavities formed in a helical path of a height and total path distance corresponding to the container mouth helical thread path (Northup/Sheng).
Regarding claim 2, Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran does not explicitly teach that the lid cylindrical side wall has a height ranging from 18% to 25% of the diameter of the end plate of the lid (Ramsey, Figs 3 & 5, shows a vertical distance of a height of side wall 3 is at least less than 50% of a horizontal distance of a diameter of the end plate/closing plane of the lid).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, Ramsey having a proximal value, to optimize and arrive at a height range from 18% to 25% of the diameter of the end plate of the lid, recognizing that an increase in height is directly correlated to an increase in ease of grip from more surface area in use, which is a desirable characteristic, 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.
Also, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (i.e. both seal via the claimed lid-to-jar threading). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran further teaches at least three reliefs formed on said wall are provided (Northup/Sheng. Northup, 102-120. Sheng, at least three 2-2). 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 9, Ramsey further teaches the closing plane (Fig 4, 2) is provided with an annular perimeter relief (Fig 5, an annular perimeter relief is shown at the periphery of 2), contiguous with the side wall, which protrudes from the closing plane (Fig 5 shows the perimeter relief contiguous with 3 and protruding away from 2), and a spherical cap relief, which has a maximum protrusion from the closure plane (Fig 5, “pop-up button 4” is a relief shown circular and protrudes downward/upward spherically like a dome from 2; because [0035] “If there is a vacuum inside the jar then the pop-up button 4 remains depressed. If there is no longer a vacuum in the jar, then the pop-up button will be released and the consumer can press it down to feel and hear a “click” or “pop” which acts as an indication”, meaning that in the depressed or pressed down state the circular perimeter causes a spherical doming shape of 4 (downward relief), and thereby is equally shaped in the opposite direction in the released pop-up state of 4 (upward relief)).
But Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran does not explicitly teach a perimeter relief and a cap relief in the order of 5-7% of the height of the lid side wall (Ramsey, Fig 5, shows a vertical distance of the perimeter relief from its top surface to 2, and a maximum protruding vertical distance of the cap relief 4 from its top surface to 2, are each at least less than 25% of a vertical distance of a height of the side wall 3).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, Ramsey having a proximal value, to optimize and arrive at the perimeter relief and cap relief protruding from the plane in the order of 5-7% of the height of the side wall, recognizing that an increase in height of the perimeter relief is directly correlated to an increase in ease of gripping the lid from increasing surface area of the protrusion while a decrease in height saves material cost, and an increase in height of the cap relief more clearly indicates the released state to a wider variety of users while a decrease in height saves material cost, 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.
Also, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (i.e. the structure yields the functional capability). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Ramsey further teaches in which the sealing means is a gasket made of natural rubber (14 is a rubber gasket; [0043] “This compound [14] can be made from… rubber”, “This compound 14 seals the lid”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20140103044 by Ramsey et al. (hereinafter “Ramsey”) in view of US Pat 4721220 issued to Northup (hereinafter “Northup”) in view of CN 108190219 issued to Sheng (hereinafter “Sheng”) in view of GB 2441327 issued to Corcoran (hereinafter “Corcoran”; from IDS 11/24/2023) in further view of US Pat 1974251 issued to Reutter (hereinafter “Reutter”).
Regarding claim 6, Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran does not explicitly teach that said reliefs are angularly equidistant from each other.
But Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran does not explicitly teach a particular distancing of reliefs.
Reutter, however, teaches a similar lid for a container comprising:
reliefs are angularly equidistant from each other (Fig 4, page 1, lines 71-72, relief lugs 18 are “equally spaced considered circumferentially [angularly]” in a helical path for engaging an uninterrupted thread of a container neck).
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 reliefs of Ramsey/Northup/Sheng to be equally spaced/angularly equidistant to each other as taught by Reutter in order to advantageously increase relief fatigue life by reducing individual relief load during lid screw-on from evenly distributing the reliefs along the jar thread versus an uneven spacing that would cause lopsided stress concentration decreasing fatigue life.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20140103044 by Ramsey et al. (hereinafter “Ramsey”) in view of US Pat 4721220 issued to Northup (hereinafter “Northup”) in view of CN 108190219 issued to Sheng (hereinafter “Sheng”) in view of GB 2441327 issued to Corcoran (hereinafter “Corcoran”; from IDS 11/24/2023) in view of US Pat 0115754 issued to Mason (hereinafter “Mason”) in further view of US Pub 20170233150 by Sims et al. (hereinafter “Sims”).
Regarding claim 7, Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran does not explicitly teach a particular bell-shaped relief.
Mason, however, teaches a similar thin metal lid for a mason jar comprising:
a bell-shaped relief is formed on the cylindrical side wall of said lid projecting outwardly, with a corresponding cavity inwardly, and tapered (Figs 2-3, a bell shaped relief projection C projects outward from a cylindrical lid side wall, from its corresponding inward cavity, and is shown tapered all around; in any location or number, page 1, col 1, lines 7-8 from last; and in light of related elements of C in dependent claim 8, Fig 2, shows a height of the bell-shaped relief C is about 50% of a lid side wall height; Fig 3, shows a width of C about equal to or less than a height of C, Fig 2), and also
Sims teaches a tapered relief in a trailing edge of a lid sidewall (Figs 2B & 2D, at least a lug 60 is a relief in the lid sidewall bottommost trailing edge; [0040] “Lug [60] trailing surface 70b preferably has a lug trailing edge taper angle”; Fig 2E, shows said relief height is about 25% of a lid side wall height).
The purpose of a bell-shaped relief is having a thumb piece (Mason, page 1, col 2, lines 3-5, “projection or thumb piece, C, of any required size or shape”). 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 lid side wall of Ramsey with a bell relief as taught by Mason tapered from the trailing edge of the lid side wall to the closing plane as taught by Sims in order to advantageously be more arthritic friendly by having a thumb piece increasing leverage, thus beneficially increasing ease of use for a wider variety of users.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention including the limitation “bell-shaped relief is tapered from a trailing edge of the side wall toward the closing plane” via the bell-shaped relief (Mason) being tapered upward (Mason and Sims) from the trailing edge of (Sims) the lid side wall (Ramsey) toward the closing plane (Ramsey).
Regarding claim 8, Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran/Mason/Sims further teaches said bell-shaped relief has a height (Mason, Fig 2, shows a height of the bell-shaped relief C is about 50% of a lid side wall height; Sims (modifying Mason), Fig 2E, shows said relief height is about 25% of said lid side wall height) and width (Mason, Fig 3, shows a width of C about equal to or less than a height of C, Fig 2). See details in the parent claim 7 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Ramsey/Northup/Sheng/Corcoran/Mason/Sims does not explicitly teach that said bell-shaped relief has a particular proportional range of height and width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, Mason and Sims having proximal values, to optimize and arrive at a bell-shaped relief height that ranges from 25% to 50% of the side wall height, and a maximum width at its base from 70% to 90% of its height, recognizing that a bigger size in any direction is directly correlated to an increase in ease of gripping and handling the lid due to increased surface area of the relief protrusion, which is a desirable characteristic, 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.
In addition, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (i.e. the lid can be opened and closed). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
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