DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Interview
On 13 March 2026, Examiner left a message with attorney Jackson regarding discussing an examiner’s amendment to put the application in condition for allowance. No return call was received.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the protrusions that are angled toward one another of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-14, 19, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “said first outer projection and said second outer projection are angled towards one another,” is indefinite. The projections of the instant invention point upwardly as seen in all figures. In addition, projections are described as parallel to one another, not angled toward each other.
The outer surfaces of each of the projections are angled toward one another at 155a and 160a, fig. 4B, but the projections per se do not seem to be angled toward each other. For the purposes of examination, the limitations of claim 1 are interpreted as meaning the outer surfaces of the projections are angled toward one another as seen in fig. 4A and 4B of the instant invention.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-7, 11-14, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derks (US 2021/0002018).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 13, Derks discloses a base structure for a container 1, said base structure comprising a base volume; and
a flange 13 defining an opening of the base volume and extending in the same plane as the opening, fig. 1 and 2, said
flange extending from the base volume about the perimeter of the base volume;
said flange comprising at least two projections 133, wherein said at least one projection extends away from said base volume,
the flange includes a central projection, at 133, fig. 2, a first outer projection located between said central projection and said base volume (to the right of projection at 133, fig. 2), and a second outer projection (to the left of projection at 133 of fig. 2)
further wherein said at least one projection extends continuously around the entire perimeter of said base volume [0026-0027] (at least 90%);
as seen in Fig. 2, Derks discloses that an outer wall surface of each of the first and second outer projections are angled towards one another.
Regarding claims 6-7, Derks further discloses that the flange comprises a central projection, at 133, fig. 2, a first outer projection located between said central projection and said base volume (to the right of projection at 133, fig. 2), and a second outer projection (to the left of projection at 133 of fig. 2) located between said central projection and an outer perimeter of said flange, each of the projections separated by a channel at 134 of substantially equal width, fig. 2, [0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
344
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Derks discloses that said two or more projections are of substantially the same height, [0032], fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, Derks discloses that each of the projections have angled sidewalls such that the projections taper in height, fig. 2.
Regarding claim 14, Derks discloses that an exterior lip of the flange, beyond reference character at 132 in fig. 2, extends downwardly at an acute angle to the sidewall at 12, fig. 2, defining the base volume (an acute angle can be drawn between a plane on a surface of the downward lip and a plane of a surface of the sidewall.
Regarding claim 19, Derks discloses that the first outer projection comprises a first face and a second face, the first face is closer to the base volume than the second face of the first outer projection; the second outer projection comprises a first face and a second face, the first face of the second outer projection is closer to the outer perimeter than the second face of the second outer projection; the first faces are angled towards one another. The dark arrows in annotated fig. 2 of Derks show the outermost first faces that are angled toward one another.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP 5533546 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11- 13, 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, said
flange extending from the base volume about the perimeter of the base volume;
said flange comprising three projections 9, extending away from said base volume to the same height, and
further wherein said at least one projection extending continuously around said perimeter of said base volume, fig. 7 (greater than 90%);
Kato discloses 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.
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.
Regarding claims 6-7, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2016/0068312).
Regarding claim 10, the references applied above teach all of claim 5, as applied above. Kato, fig. 6, further discloses that the second outer projection comprises a first face and a second face, the first face located closer to the outer perimeter of the flange than the second face.
The references applied above do not teach 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 is analogous art in regard to projections on sealing flanges and teaches a number of sealing projection geometries (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 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].
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 projections 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 hermeticity as per the teaching of Kaneko.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the prior art teaches the protrusion angles as presented in claim 10 (see above rejection of Kato in view of Kaneko), there is no available prior art that teaches the claimed angles of claims 9, 20, and 21 in combination with the other claimed structure. In addition, applicant has a particular reason/solves a particular problem with the claimed angles, as found on page 4 of the instant application:
“Preferably, the second outer projection comprises a first face and a second face, the first face located closer to the outer perimeter of the flange than the second face, wherein 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. In this way, the outer faces of the outer projections, namely the first face of the first outer projection and the second face of the second outer projection, are of greater length than the inner faces of the projections, such as the second face of the first outer projection, the first face of the second outer projection and the faces of the central projection. Advantageously, a greater surface area is provided on the outer faces of the outer projections onto which a film lid can be affixed. Further, this encourages contaminants present on the projections into the first channel and the second channel.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument against the drawing objection, examiner disagrees. As shown in the annotated figures of the instant invention, it is not the projections that are angled toward one another, but the bisector of each projection, as applicant’s new claim 20 correctly claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
379
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the projections do not extend away from the base volume, the projections of Derks are considered to extend upwardly from the lowest point of the flange at the troughs of each projection. The direction the projections point can be interpreted as downwardly or upwardly, upwardly being away from the base volume. Some upwardly pointing projections that point away from the base are highlighted in darkened lines in annotated fig. 2 of Derks. With this in mind, applicant’s arguments against the direction of the projections of Derks is not found persuasive.
PNG
media_image4.png
344
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that The projections of Kato are not angled towards one another but point upward, examiner disagrees. As seen in fig. 6 of Kato, the projections are tapered on the sides. In the same way applicant has three projections that point upwardly but it is the bisector or the difference between angles of the outermost faces of the projections relative to the inner faces of the projections that Kato does not disclose. However, at least one of the faces of each of the projections of Kato point toward another of the faces of the projections. With this in mind, Kato discloses the limitation in question.
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 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
Prosecution Insights