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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 10 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Amended claims 10-11 directed to non-elected embodiment.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 4, 6-7 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 4, the recitation “a (or the) centre” is unclear as to what exactly applicant is reciting. Furthermore, “said at least one rib extending from the centre of the lid underside” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it is referring to.
Regarding claim 6, “said bottom and raised surface portions” lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what it is referring to.
Regarding claim 7, “a second rib segment” is recited; however, a first rib segment has not been recited and it is unclear whether or not there are a plurality of rib segments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 13-16, 18-20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,292,024 to Koefelda et al. (Koefelda) in view of 2015/0239622 to Jian et al. (Jian).
Regarding claim 1, 26, Koefelda discloses a lid (54) for a container (52) for transporting dry goods (intended use), the lid comprising an outer skirt (122, Fig 12) around the lid, water guides provided on underside of the lid (Fig 20), the guides comprising one or more radially extending ribs (154), one or more sloping surface portions (138) defined by the underside of the lid, wherein the one or more radially extending ribs (154) and one of more sloping surface portions (138) are configured to guide water centrifugally toward the outer skirt of the lid, the outer skirt of the lid configured to discharge water from the lid during rotation of the lid around an axis substantially perpendicular to the lid since it has the structure as recited (Fig 18). Koefelda further discloses drainage channel (126) but does not teach drainage channels at corners of the lid underside. However, Jian discloses a lid having a rectangular shape with corners. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of the Koefelda lid to be rectangular with corners as suggested by Jian in order to facilitate covering of rectangular containers since it has been held that configuration of a container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The modification would have resulted in the corners also having draining channel (126) that can discharge any water from the lid as recited since it would have the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 3, Koefelda further discloses wherein the one or more radially extending ribs (154) comprise at least one rib extending from a centre of the lid underside (Fig 12).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Koefelda further discloses one or more radially extending ribs (154) comprise at least one rib extending from a point offset of center of the lid underside (Fig 12).
Regarding claim 5, Koefelda further discloses radially extending ribs (154) comprise subset of ribs each comprising a first segment (A, Fig 12 below) extending perpendicularly from bottom surface (134) of lid underside (Fig 12).
Regarding claim 6, Koefelda further discloses radially extending ribs (154) comprise at least a subset of ribs (B, Fig 12 below) each comprising a rib length extend perpendicular from raised surface portion of lid underside
Regarding claim 7, Koefelda further discloses radially extending ribs comprise a subset of ribs each comprising a maximum rib height measured at first segment (A, Fig 12 below) and minimum rib height measured at second rib segment (B, Fig 12 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Koefelda further discloses sloping surface portions (138) planar or concavely curved.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Koefelda further discloses drainage channels (126) near border of the lid (Fig 12) and near corner of the lid.
Regarding claim 14, Koefelda further discloses drainage channel (126) extends away from lid border (Fig 17) perpendicular or with outward slant (Fig 16).
Regarding claim 15, Koefelda further discloses drainage channel (126) has a substantially U-shaped transversal cross section (Fig 17).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Koefelda further teaches the lid having a substantially rectangular shape (Jian, Fig 3a).
Regarding claim 18, Koefelda further discloses the lid made of substantially rigid plastics (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Koefelda further discloses lid being a single piece capable of being made by injection molding since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 20, Koefelda further discloses lid adapted to conform with interference to an erected container body (52) since it has the structure as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach one or more drainage channels at one or more corners of the lid. However, Koefelda discloses a channel (126) around the lid that discharge water from the lid as recited since it has the structure as recited. Jian teaches lid structures having rectangular shape with corners. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of the Koefelda lid such that it was rectangular as suggested by Jian in order to adapt to the shape of the contents to be stored and covered. The modification would have resulted in the channel at one or more corners of the underside of the lid since the channel (126) extends around the periphery of the lid.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights