DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Claims 3-5, 8, 15, 20, 23, and 25, are canceled.
Claim 29 is new.
Claims 16-18 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-14, 21, 22, 24, 26-29 are examined herein.
The indicated allowability of claims 9, 20, and 21, 22, 24, and 26-28 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Cachia (US 9228657). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “bisector” does not appear in the specification.
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 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-14, 19, 24, and 29 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.
Cl. 1: in the limitation, “wherein a first bisector of the first outer projection extending above the first outer projection and a second bisector of the second outer projection extending above the second outer projection intersect,” it is unclear how the bisector is found because there is no claimed shape of the projections. In addition, because the projections are three dimensional, it is assumed that the bisector should be taken from a cross section of projection. The shape of the projection could be irregular and then a bisector would be taken through only a portion of the irregular shape, or a line could potentially be found that divides the area of the irregular shape into two areas of equal parts and have a plurality of bisectors. Applicant’s invention has a triangular shaped projection and specifically is directed to a bisector of an angle, but the claim only uses the term “bisector”. For the purposes of examination, the term “bisector” is taken broadly as any line bisecting a geometric shape or a line that can separate a two-dimensional shape or line into two equal areas.
Claim 1 reads: “said flange comprising at least one projection” and later “said flange comprises at least two projections” and further on in claim 1, the flange is defined to have a first outer projection and a second outer projection. It is unclear if the later introduced projections refer back to the one or more projections originally introduced and the first and second refer back to the at least two projections. Should the first introduction of projections read “at least two projections” and then the second instance refer to “the at least projections” or the second reference to projections be restated to something like “wherein the at least one projection comprises at least two projections separated by a channel.” The limitations “a first outer projection” and “a second outer projection” are interpreted as “a first outer projection of the at least two projections” and “a second outer projection of the at least two projections.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the angle" in the last 2 lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the angle" in the last lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Cl. 12 reads, “The base structure of claim 1, wherein said at least one projection tapers in height.” It is not clear what the phrase “tapers in height” means. The phrase could mean that the projection increases then decreases in height from one end to the other or is the limitation intended to mean that the width of the projection tapers along the height such that the width becomes smaller from bottom to top. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 24 depends from a canceled claim.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11-13, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 5533546 B2) in view of Cachia (US 9228657).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 27, Kato discloses, fig. 1 and 2, a base structure for a container 10, said base structure comprising a base volume; and
a flange at 4 defining an opening of the base volume and extending in the plane of the opening of the base volume, fig. 6, as seen in fig 1 and 2, said flange extending from the base volume about the perimeter of the base volume;
said flange comprising three projections at 9, extending away from said base volume to the same height, the width of each projection tapers along the height of the projection, each projection is separated by a channel, and
further wherein said at least one projection extending continuously around said perimeter of said base volume, fig. 3 (greater than 90%);
Kato discloses a central projection, a first outer projection located between said central projection and said base volume, and a second outer projection located between said central projection and an outer perimeter of said flange wherein a distance between the first outer projection and the base volume is less than a distance between the second outer projection and the base volume, figs. 1 and 2.
Kato discloses that the projections have angled sidewalls, translation page 5, “The cross-section of each annular rib 9 has a taper shape that tapers upward in order to facilitate peeling of the in-mold label container 10 from the mold, and the taper angle of the annular rib 9 is 20°.”
As such, an outer wall surface of each of the first and second outer projections taper in height and are angled towards one another.
Kato does not disclose that a first bisector of (a cross-section of) the first outer projection and a second bisector of the second outer projection extending above the projections intersect.
Cachia is analogous art in regard to sealing flanges with protrusions. Cachia teaches, fig. 4 and fig. 8, an inner, first, projection 8b and an outer, second projection, 9b, where a bisector through each of the projections intersect above the projections. The shape of the first projection 8b is such that if liquid moves past the second projection at 9b (analogous in shape to the projections disclosed by Kato), the liquid will be captured under the overhanging part of the first projection 8b and increase the sealing force against a component which the seal is positioned, col. 1: 50-end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner projection (the first outer projection that is closer to the volume of the container) to have the angled shape of Cachia in order to capture any liquid and improve the seal by trapping any liquid as per the teaching of Cachia.
Regarding claim 9, Kato as modified above by Cachia results in the first outer projection (innermost projection toward the body) having a first face closer to the base volume and a second face further from the base volume than the first face such that an angle between the normal to the flange and the first face is greater than the angle between the normal to the flange and the second face, reference fig. 4 and 8 of Cachia.
Regarding claim 24, Kato discloses at least three projections, a central projection, a first outer projection located between said central projection and said base volume, and a second outer projection located between said central projection and an outer perimeter of said flange, each of the projections are separated by a channel equal in width (not numbered, best seen in fig. 6, translation page 5: “The annular ribs 9 are arranged at intervals of 1.4 mm.”
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato and Cachia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2016/0068312).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above.
Kato as modified above by Cachia further teaches the first outer projection (innermost projection toward the body) having a first face closer to the base volume and a second face further from the base volume than the first face such that an angle between the normal to the flange and the first face is greater than the angle between the normal to the flange and the second face, reference fig. 4 and 8 of Cachia.
Kato does not teach the claimed angles of the second outer projection.
Kaneko is analogous art in regard to projections on sealing flanges and teaches a number of sealing projection geometries (embodiments seen in fig. 3A, 9A-9C, for example, [0035]) that have a first outer face closer to a perimeter of the container 8 and a second inner face (toward the volume of the container) where the angle between the normal to the flange and the first face is greater than the angle between the normal to the flange and the second face. Kaneko teaches that providing different angles between the normal and protrusion faces is to balance hermeticity with ability to separate the lid when opening, [0004] and strength of adhesion compared to ease of opening [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the outermost/second outer projection furthest from the base volume (to the outer edge of the flange) of Kato such that the first and second faces are at different angles where the angle between the first face (closer to the outer perimeter) and the normal to the flange is greater than the angle between the second face (closer to the opening of the container) and the normal to the flange to allow ease of opening in addition to good adhesion strength and hermeticity as per the teaching of Kaneko.
Claim(s) 14, 28, 29, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato and Cachia as applied to claims 1 and 21 and further in view of Nideborn (EP 0656300 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 21, as applied above.
The references applied above do not teach said flange is arranged to extend at an acute angle to a wall defining the base volume.
Nideborn teaches a container body at 1, fig. 1, with a flange 6 and a portion of the wall extends outwardly at 27 (lower ledge) to prevent wedging between stacked trays, page 4: 20-25, as seen in the figures, the outward wall extension causes the flange to be oriented at an acute angle with respect to the outward portion of the wall defining the base volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper portion of the body of the container of Kato to include an outwardly angled portion that forms a lower ledge for preventing wedging between stacked trays as per the teaching of Nideborn.
Regarding claim 29, Kato discloses a central projection, a first outer projection located between said central projection and said base volume, and a second outer projection located between said central projection and an outer perimeter of said flange wherein a distance between the first outer projection and the base volume is less than a distance between the second outer projection and the base volume, figs. 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 6-7, Kato discloses each of the projections are separated by a channel equal in width (not numbered, best seen in fig. 6, translation page 5: “The annular ribs 9 are arranged at intervals of 1.4 mm.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 or combination thereof 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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
