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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
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 “text on the lid” 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
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 is 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 lip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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) 1-5, 7-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhouse; Peter Joseph (US 20070228054 A1) in view of Akins; R. W. (US 6446827 B1), in view of KANG SEON YOUNG (KR 20230022668 A); (see attached translation).
Regarding claims 1-4, 12, 15, and 17 Woodhouse discloses an open top vase lid (Fig. 1; 1);[0021], comprising: a top surface configured to cover at least a portion of an open end of a vase (2), said vase having an interior (7) with a width, wherein the top surface includes a center (6) and a periphery (5), a sidewall (3) located at the periphery of the top surface; wherein the sidewall is configured to secure the lid to the open end of the vase [0027], and a stem support (4) having a height located towards the center of the top surface [0024], wherein the stem support extends vertically downward into the vase and defines a cavity having a width configured to receive one or more flowers [0024]; wherein the width of the cavity is between 10% to 90% of the width of the interior of the vase (shown in Fig. 2); wherein the stem support downwardly extends into the interior of the vase at least one inch (Fig. 2); wherein the height of the stem support is 1.5 to 3.5 times longer than the height of the sidewall of the lid (Figs. 1 and 2).
Woodhouse does not disclose at least a portion of said sidewall extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase. Akins teaches at least a portion of said sidewall (Fig. 2; 22); (Col. 4, lines 19-20) extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious substitution of functional equivalent, to substitute the sidewall having an upwardly extending sidewall for a frictional fit with the inside of the vase, as taught by Woodhouse, wherein at least a portion of said sidewall extends vertically downward along the outside of the vase, as taught by Akins, in order to provide a tighter fitting lid (Col. 2, lines 55-60) and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Woodhouse in view of Akins does not disclose wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support. Kang teaches wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support (Fig. 8; 22); (corresponding to the perforation line, shown in the figure above with a dashed line for emphasis, which can be sized according to the number of stems within the stem support. Thus the width of the cavity would exceed the height (L2) of the stem support); “the cap 20 is cut at a predetermined height along any one perforation line 22 among the plurality of perforation lines 22. As it is separated, the size of the opening 21 can be increased”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the cavity of Woodhouse and Akins wherein the width of the cavity exceeds the height of the stem support, as taught by Kang, in order to allow for the insertion of more flowers.
Regarding claim 5 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the top surface, sidewall, and stem support are all made of one piece of material (Fig. 1); [0037].
Regarding claims 7 and 13 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang further discloses a retainer (Akins; Fig. 1; 24) configured to secure the lid to the lip of a vase.
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 19 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 17. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang further discloses wherein the lid includes an interior sidewall configured to provide friction to secure the lid to a vase without a lip (Akins; Fig. 1; 23).
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 20 Woodhouse, in view of Akins and Kang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 20. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the stem support tapers inward as it extends downward into the interior of the vase (Fig. 2); [0024].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhouse; Peter Joseph (US 20070228054 A1) in view of Akins; R. W. (US 6446827 B1), in view of KANG SEON YOUNG (KR 20230022668 A); (see attached translation), further in view of Bortman; Mark (US 20060112624 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Woodhouse, in view of Kang and Akins, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse further discloses wherein the lid is made of plastic [0037], but does not disclose flexible plastic.
Bortman teaches wherein the lid is made of a flexible plastic material [0024]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid to be a flexible plastic, as taught by Bortman, in order to conform more easily to the shape of the container, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhouse; Peter Joseph (US 20070228054 A1) in view of Akins; R. W. (US 6446827 B1), in view of KANG SEON YOUNG (KR 20230022668 A); (see attached translation), further in view of Altman; Kenneth L. et al. (US 20060272208 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10 Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang does not disclose a pattern, text, and/or color. Altman teaches a pattern, text, and/or color; wherein the text on the lid includes care instructions for species of plants and/or flowers (Fig. 1); [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Woodhouse in view of Akins and Kang to include a pattern, text and/or color, as taught by Altman in order to appeal to the consumer [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644