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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 in response to Office Action 11/10/2025 have been fully considered:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the amendment of shape as claimed overcomes the prior art. Examiner agrees. However claim 20 needs fixing.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 or 5 be found allowable, claims 12-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 3-11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim (e.g. claim 3) to object to the other (e.g. its duplicate claim 12) as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 20 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 20 is missing first words from the previous time it was presented, and is indefinite without them.
Allowable Subject Matter/REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior art, and examiner did not find references to teach all the limitations particularly as follows:
Claim 1: The limitation “the deformed part of the seal forms a << V >> whose two legs extend on either side of the deformation rib, with the seal expanding on either side of the deformation rib when the lid is mounted to the container” has sufficiently narrowed the scope of the claim.
Since the seal expanding on both (i.e. the meaning of either) sides is not taught, none of the references anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, the embodiment of Figure 9 of the examined disclosure shows a deformation rib 7 deforming the seal 24 to both its sides (e.g. since it is in the middle), which is different than the prior art which shows one side.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight, since the function (i.e. sealing between seal and rib) was achieved without the same particular structure (i.e. the seal expanding to either side of the deformation rib) of the examined invention.
Claims 2-19 are allowed as depending from an allowed parent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 26 May 2026
Prosecution Insights