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
All objections and 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 in response to Office Action 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that since secondary prior art Helms teaches the latch tab is foldable to contact against the container sidewall and maintain contact “during manufacture” it cannot perform said function, as amended, namely being foldable (page 8 last para & page 9 para 1 & para 3). Examiner disagrees, the language in the claim allows for Helms foldability. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that secondary prior art Dutt ‘435 cannot maintain the latch tab against the sidewall because it doesn’t (page 9 para 2). Examiner agrees, however points out the argument is piecemeal. Regardless, since the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection (Dutt ‘435 removed), the argument no longer applies. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues that primary prior art Luburic does not teach the amendment making the lid latch curved, pointing to the Figures (page 10 para 2). Examiner points out that the written specification teaches the lid latch is curved. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020176669 by Luburic et al. (hereinafter “Luburic”).
Regarding claim 13, Luburic teaches a system for sealing a container (Fig 14, an assembly is shown with a container sealing system), comprising:
a ring for engaging the container (Figs 14-15, seal ring 1000/1001), the ring comprising:
a container latch channel for accepting a portion of the container (Fig 15, a container latch channel of 1000 that at least partially engages the container attachment portion is “aperture 1012”);
a lid latch for engaging with a lid (Fig 15, a lid latch capable of engaging a lid 500/501 is “ring bead 1014” shown latching the ring to a corresponding latchable lid portion), the lid latch comprising
an inner lid latch side and an outer lid latch side (Fig 15, 1014 has an inner side and outer side), wherein at least a portion of the lid latch extends in a radial direction (1014 shown extending radially outward, which is at least one lid latch portion); and a bottom wall extending between an inner wall of the container latch channel and the lid latch (Fig 15, a bottom wall is defined by “floor 1020” between an inner wall of the container latch channel of the ring being sidewall 1016 and the lid latch of the ring 1014), wherein at least the inner wall of the container latch channel, the bottom wall, and the lid latch form a lid latch channel (Fig 15, a lid latch U shape channel is shown defined by 1020, the inner CLC and outer lid latch side); and
the lid (500/501) comprising:
a ring latch channel for at least partially receiving the lid latch of the ring (Fig 15, a ring latch channel is “cavity 622” that shows the ring 1000 latching the lid 500), wherein the ring latch channel comprises an inner ring latch sidewall, an outer ring latch sidewall, and a top ring latch surface (622 has an inner sidewall, an outer sidewall and a top wall surface), wherein a width of the inner ring latch sidewall increases from a first diameter at a bottom of the inner ring latch sidewall to a second diameter at a latch notch (Fig 15, page 18, lines 22-23, “a seal ring 620 [rib] on the inner most seal surface 654” is a latch notch, Fig 6, that shows a first bottom diameter of the inner lid latch sidewall increase to a second diameter defined by a peak of 620) and decreases from the second diameter to a third diameter proximate the top ring latch surface (and shows the second diameter of 620 decrease to an above third diameter that is proximate the lid top wall latch surface), and wherein
the lid latch (1014) is curved toward the inner wall of the container latch channel (page 28 lines 11-12, “ring bead 1014 may be… rounded in shape” thereby causing it to curve toward the inner wall 1016 of the container latch channel 1012) such that a top of the lid latch opposite the bottom wall (1020) protrudes into the lid latch channel (1014 is already shown (not rounded) protruding into the lid latch channel, and shown having a top opposite and above 1020, so a top of 1014 being rounded/curved does too but more so).
Regarding claim 14, Luburic further teaches an upper portion of the outer lid latch side is substantially convex (Fig 15, an upper portion of the outer lid latch side, proximal to label 1002 from viewer perspective, is shown substantially convex).
Regarding claim 15, Luburic further teaches the top ring latch surface is substantially rounded (page 28, lines 1-2, “top surface 1010 (and the corresponding cavity on the container lid, Fig 15) may be substantially rounded”).
Regarding claim 16, Luburic further teaches the radial direction is radially outward (Fig 15, 1014 shown extending radially outward).
Regarding claim 17, Luburic further teaches the inner ring latch sidewall (Fig 15, lid 500/501 inner ring latch sidewall (contacting at 1004)) comprises a ridged surface (bottom surface is shown ridged by having at least a distinct ridge/ledge/edge (near 1004)).
Regarding claim 18, Luburic further teaches the ring (Fig 15, 1000/1001) further comprises: a ring bead protrusion on the outer lid latch side (Fig 15, the outer side of lid latch 1014 is shown defining a ring bead protrusion), wherein the ring bead protrusion extends into the lid latch channel (Fig 15, 1014’s protrusion extends into/is housed inside of the lid latch channel (to latch the lid as in claim 13)).
Regarding claim 19, Luburic further teaches the ring bead protrusion has a substantially trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Fig 15, 1014 is shown substantially trapezoidal).
Regarding claim 20, Luburic further teaches the outer ring latch sidewall (of the lid (near 1004)) comprises a recess for engaging the ring bead protrusion (Fig 15, 1014 engages/inserts into a recess there).
Regarding claim 21, Luburic further teaches the outer ring latch sidewall (of the lid’s ring latch channel 622) comprises a latch protrusion (Fig 15, a latch protrusion on the lid’s outer sidewall of its ring latch channel is a protrusion proximal the label 1014, from viewer perspective) for engaging the lid latch channel (engagement of the lid’s ring latch protrusion to the ring’s lid latch channel is shown).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176669 by Luburic et al. (hereinafter “Luburic”) in view of US Pub 20060180587 by Helms (hereinafter “Helms”).
Regarding claim 1, Luburic teaches a container assembly (Fig 14, an assembly shown with container), comprising:
a container (Fig 15, 1100/1101) comprising:
a bottom surface (has a bottom surface to contain paint); and
at least one sidewall circumscribing the bottom surface, wherein the at least one sidewall extends in a vertical direction from the bottom surface to an upper end thereby forming a cavity (Figs 14-15 sidewall 1110 circumscribes the bottom surface and extends upward to define a cavity),
the upper end comprising
an attachment portion and a latch tab extending from the attachment portion in a radial direction (Fig 15, the upper end shows an attachment portion of rim 1104 for a sealing ring 1000 including a latch tab which is defined by “latch surface 1032” shown extending radially outward from 1104);
a ring (Figs 14-15, seal ring 1000/1001) comprising:
a container latch channel for at least partially receiving the attachment portion of the container (Fig 15, a container latch channel of 1000 that at least partially engages the container attachment portion is “aperture 1012”), wherein the container latch channel comprises an outer container latch channel (CLC) side, an inner CLC side, and a top CLC side (Fig 15, 1012 has an outer side, inner side, and top side);
a lid latch for engaging a lid (Fig 15, a lid latch of the ring capable of engaging a lid 500/501 is a ring portion proximal “ring bead 1014” shown latching the lid), the lid latch comprising
an inner lid latch side, a distal lid latch edge, and an outer lid latch side (Fig 15, said ring portion proximal 1014 has an inner side, distal edge, and outer side); and a bottom wall extending between the inner CLC side and the outer lid latch side (Fig 15, a bottom wall is defined by “floor 1020” between container latch inner side of the ring and the lid latch outer side of the ring), wherein at least the inner CLC side, the bottom wall, and the outer lid latch side form a lid latch channel (Fig 15, a lid latch U shape channel is shown defined by 1020, the inner CLC and outer lid latch side); and
the lid (500/501) comprising:
a ring latch channel for at least partially receiving the lid latch of the ring (Fig 15, a ring latch channel of the lid is “cavity 622” that shows the ring 1000 latching the lid 500),
But Luburic does not explicitly teach the latch tab is foldable to maintain contact against the container sidewall structurally.
Helms, however, teaches a latch tab is configured to fold downwardly against the sidewall of the container when the container latch channel at least partially receives the sidewall, and wherein the latch tab is maintained against the sidewall of the container by an outer CLC side (Fig 9, a latch tab that is rib 50 is shown folded downwardly against a container sidewall 16 when a lid’s container latch channel 34 at least partially receives 16, and also 50 is at least partially maintained in contact against 16 by an outer container latch channel side of leg 38; [0029] “the sidewall 16 of container 10 is coated with a polymer layer 29 such as polypropylene or polyethylene which melts and fuses to seal the rolled rim into the rib 50”, and [0028] “outer leg 38 engages the rib 50 and the inner leg 36 again engages the sidewall 16 of the container”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch tab of Luburic to be foldable structurally at least once as taught by Helms in order to advantageously reinforce the rim versus jostling damage and seal breakage and lengthen fatigue life of the rim since contact of “the rib (50/23) stiffens the sidewall surrounding the opening of the container” (Helms, [0029]).
Examiner notes that this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case the claimed function results in a product comprising a downwardly folded latch tab contacting the sidewall, which the same resultant combination product of Luburic as modified by Helms produces.
Regarding claim 4, Luburic further teaches the outer CLC side (of the ring) comprises one or more latch surfaces comprising: a sloped surface extending in a sloped direction into the container latch channel (Fig 15 shows at least one sloped latch surface of ring 1000 CLC 1012 that slopes in a direction into the CLC (i.e. a surface around latch surface 1032)).
Regarding claim 5, Luburic further teaches the sloped surface forms at least part of a latch protrusion (Fig 15, a latch protrusion of 1000 is shown engaging container latch surface 1032, and extending from/formed at least in part by the sloped surface directly above) for engaging latch tab (Fig 15, capable of engaging container latch tab 1032).
Regarding claim 6, Luburic further teaches the latch protrusion has a substantially trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Fig 15, said latch protrusion of the ring that engages 1032 is shown substantially trapezoidal).
Regarding claim 7, Luburic further teaches the ring (Fig 15, 1000) further comprises an underside surface (underside surface of 1000 (e.g. downwardly opposite of floor 1020 surface)), wherein an edge between the inner CLC side and the underside surface is rounded or chamfered (Fig 15, a rounded edge of 1000 that is between the ring’s CLC inner side and the underside surface is shown proximal to the label for 1034).
Regarding claim 8, Luburic further teaches the bottom surface (Fig 14, container bottom surface) is substantially round (shown substantially round (i.e. the substantially circular from a viewer top view because the container is cylindrical)).
Regarding claim 9, Luburic further teaches a thickness of the at least one sidewall of the container is less than a width of the container latch channel (Fig 15, a thickness of the at least one sidewall of the container is shown to be less than at least one width of the CLC 1012 (i.e. the sidewall portion proximal label 1112 is shown as a smaller width than a width of the ring’s CLC aligned with 1032, since that width is the sidewall width plus 1032 width)).
Regarding claim 10, Luburic further teaches the container is a first single component, the ring is a second single component, and the lid is a third single component (Fig 15, all three are each single components).
Regarding claim 11, Luburic further teaches attachment of the ring (Fig 15, 1000) to the container forms a liquid-tight seal between the ring and the container (Fig 15, page 28, lines 28-31, “the aperture 1012 [of 1000] engages with the container rim 1104… such that a liquid-tight seal is formed”).
Regarding claim 12, Luburic further teaches attachment of the lid (Fig 15, 501) to the ring (1001) forms a liquid-tight seal between the lid and the ring (Fig 15, page 28, lines 14-15, “a liquid-tight seal between the container ring 1001 and the container lid 501 may be formed”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020176669 by Luburic et al. (hereinafter “Luburic”) in view of US Pub 20060180587 by Helms (hereinafter “Helms”) in view of US Pat 4560077 issued to Dutt (hereinafter “Dutt ‘077”) in further view of US Pub 20060289570 by Rohr et al. (hereinafter “Rohr”).
Regarding claim 2, Luburic/Helms does not explicitly teach the container latch channel (Luburic, Fig 15, 1012 of the ring) comprises a CLC protrusion extending from the top CLC side into the container latch channel, the CLC protrusion for engaging the upper end of the container.
Dutt ‘077, however, solves the similar problem of sealing the container rim, teaching a similar container latch channel (i.e. CLC), comprising:
a CLC protrusion extending from the top CLC side into the container latch channel, the CLC protrusion for engaging the upper end of the container (Fig 3, a CLC protrusion is substantially rectangular load stop ring 50 that extends from the top side of a CLC defined by 30 and 32, and 50 engages the upper end of a container).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CLC of Luburic with a CLC protrusion in its top side as taught by Dutt ‘077 in order to beneficially create stress concentration from the weight of the lid and anything stacked on the lid into a tighter seal with the container rim, thereby further reducing leaks or spills from jostling.
But Luburic/Helms/Dutt ‘077 does not explicitly teach the concept that the CLC protrusion can be in the CLC of the ring (since Dutt ‘077 protrusion above is in the lid, not a separate ring).
Rohr, however, teaches a CLC channel with a top side CLC protrusion (Fig 5, protrusion 21 is in a CLC channel top side of a ring which is spout 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rohr before them, to have added the CLC protrusion of Dutt ‘077 to the ring’s CLC top side of Luburic to improve the seal on the rim as reasoned above for Dutt ‘077.
Regarding claim 3, Luburic/Dutt/Helms/Dutt ‘077/Rohr further teaches the CLC protrusion is substantially rectangular in shape (Dutt ‘077, Fig 3, 50 is substantially rectangular). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 3759415 - both latch tab fold directions shown possible, but not against sidewall (Fig 3)
US 4572399 - but folds inside (Figs 1-2)
US 5699959 - both latch tabs fold directions shown possible against sidewall too, but permanent/adhered/glued/welded (Figs 8-9)
WO 2019201967 - but folds inside (Figs 3-5)
NL 8601008 - but "extensions 46, 48, 50, and 52 are folded back…However, due to the memory of the board, the extensions are stretched outwardly from the side panels of the base and do not lie flat against the side walls" (Figs 14-15)
US 20210347524 - but latch tab 413 cannot be "maintained" flush when the closure is on because of an aperture at actuation area 419 (Fig 4)
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 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 20 April 2026
Prosecution Insights