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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5, 8-9, 12-13, 16 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17 are presented for examination.
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 7, 10-11, 15 and 17 are 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 7 recites the limitation "the bracket " in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for “each of the brackets” or “one of the brackets”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the bracket " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for “each of the brackets” or “one of the brackets”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bracket " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for “each of the brackets” or “one of the brackets”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bracket " in multiple lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for “each of the brackets” or “one of the brackets”
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bracket " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and appears to be an error for “each of the brackets” or “one of the brackets”
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, 6-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tojo et al. (US 7,048,975) in view of Walsak (US 10,583,965).
In re claim 1: Tojo et al. discloses a container 1 comprising fibers (Col.10, ll.51-65), comprising a container body 5 comprising fibers (pulp) and a closure 30 comprising fibers (Col.13, ll,13-16) arranged on the container body 5, wherein the container body 5 comprises a neck region (lower portion of 4) and a mouth opening (opening top portion of 4), a closure body (skirt) that is designed, in a closed position of the closure 30, to close the mouth opening (see figures 8 and 9 of Tojo et al.).
Tojo et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Walsak:
a hinged closure 10 on the container body 80, wherein the hinged closure 10 comprises a ring 40 circumferentially surrounding a neck region and a closure body 80 that is designed, in a closed position of the hinged closure 10, to close a mouth opening, wherein the ring 40 and the closure body 50 are connected by two brackets 20/30 (see figures 7-9 of Walsak).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the container and closure of Tojo et al. with a hinge closure design as taught by Walsak in order to provide a tight seal and to prevent the loss of the closure body (see figures 7-9 of Walsak).
Tojo et al. in view of Walsak further teaches:
In re claim 6: a seal 70 is arranged on the closure body 50, which seal 70 comes to lie in the closed position between the closure body 50 and the mouth opening (see figures 7-9 of Walsak).
In re claim 7: a first connecting region (region with 23) of one of the brackets 20/30 and the ring 40 allows a first relative movement from the bracket 20/30 to the ring 40 (see figure 7 of Walsak).
In re claim 10: one of the brackets is formed in two parts with a joint 25 between a first bracket part 20 and a second bracket part 30 (see figure 7 of Walsak).
In re claim 11: the hinged closure 10 further comprises a movement-limiting guide 27 for one of the brackets 20/30, wherein the movement-limiting guide is arranged on the neck region or on a shoulder region of the container body 80 comprising fibers (see figures 8-9 of Walsak).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Tojo et al. in view of Walsak for the same reason as discussed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsak (US 10,583,965) in view of Hikmet (US 2021/0101330).
In re claim 14: Walsak discloses a hinged closure 10, that can be arranged on a container body 8 comprising fibers, wherein the hinged closure 10 comprises: a ring 40, which is designed to circumferentially surround a neck region of a container body 8, a closure body 50, wherein the ring 40 and the closure body 50 are connected by two brackets 20/30 (see figure 7 and 8 of Walsak).
Walsak discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Hikmet:
wherein the hinged closure comprising fiber.
Walsak further discloses that the closure body can be formed from a plurality of different materials which can be manufactured through 3D printing (Col.3, ll.39-49 of Walsak). Hikmet teaches adding fibers to the same plurality of materials during 3D printing to increase the strength of the final product ([0034]). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate fibers into closure material for the reasons discussed above.
In re claim 15: a seal 70 is arranged on the closure body 50, wherein the seal 70 comprises a biodegradable material, wherein, the seal 70 comprises silicone rubber or silicone (Col.3, ll.45-49 of Walsak), wherein, the seal 70 is arranged so as to be fixed, but mechanically releasable, on the closure body 50, wherein, a first connecting region of one of the brackets 20/30 and the ring 40 allows a first relative movement from one of the brackets 20/30 to the ring 40, wherein, a second connecting region of one of the brackets 20/30 and the closure body 50 allows a second relative movement between one of the brackets 20/30 and the closure body 50, wherein, the hinged closure 10 further comprises a movement-limiting guide 27 for one of the brackets 20/30, wherein, the movement-limiting guide 27 can be arranged on the neck region or on a shoulder region of the container body 8 comprising fibers (see figures 8-9 of Walsak).
In re claim 17: one of the brackets 20/30 is formed in two parts with a joint 25 between a first bracket part 20 and a second bracket part 30 (see figure 7 of Walsak).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-89 for prior art the teaches and suggest structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
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