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, 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 (pulp fibers) 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.).
Wherein the fibers are of natural origin (pulp fibers are cellulosic fibers derived from wood, plants, or recycled materials which all come from a natural origin).
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 each 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: each 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 each 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) and Achten et al. (US 2021/0324177).
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.
Walsak in view of Hikmet the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Achten et al.:
Achten et al. teaches the provision of natural fibers used through 3D printing (see [0105] of Achten et al.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the material of Walsak in view of Hikmet with a natural fiber as taught by Achten et al.as an equivalent material fiber for the advatages discosed in Achten et al. (see [0105] of Achten et al.)
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 each of the brackets 20/30 and the ring 40 allows a first relative movement from of each of the brackets 20/30 to the ring 40, wherein, a second connecting region of each of the brackets 20/30 and the closure body 50 allows a second relative movement between of each brackets 20/30 and the closure body 50, wherein, the hinged closure 10 further comprises a movement-limiting guide 27 for each 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: each 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the arguments regarding the fibers being of a natural origin. Pulp fiber pulp fibers are cellulosic fibers derived from wood, plants, or recycled materials which all come from a natural origin and therefore the container and closure of Tojo et al. meets this new limitation. The amount of natural origin fibers is not being claimed.
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 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
Prosecution Insights