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
Claims 5, 6, 11-15, 17, 19, and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 3, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 16 and 18 are therefore pending.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 5 identifies external and internal threads. This is not shown in the drawings.
Claim 10 identifies the connection element includes a plurality of holes through which the fiber material of the container extends. This is not shown in the drawings.
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 9 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 9 recites that the connection element is connected to the container by “substance bonding”. What constitutes “substance bonding” is unclear and does not adequately specify the type of bond intended to be claimed.
The Specification gives no guidance as to what comprises “substance bonding” except that it is one type of bonding equivalent to form-fitting. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that any known type of bonding including chemical, adhesive, or mechanical bonding or joining will suffice to meet the limitations of the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US 2577304) in view of Dayton (US 9452863).
Regarding Claim 1, Brooks discloses a fiber container (6) comprising an opening defined by ledges or shoulders (20). Brooks also discloses a lid (30, 32, 32’) operable to close the opening and a flexible hinge strip (33, 34, 35). The container is made of fiber material and includes a biodegradable or bioinert coating (wax – Col. 3 Lines 42-53) and the lid is connected to the container by the flexible hinge strip (Col. 4 Lines 39-47). The flexible hinge strip is made of fiber material (kraft paper – Col. 4 Lines 35-38). The flexible hinge strip is attached to the lid and the flexible hinge strip is connected to the container.
Brooks does not explicitly disclose the lid is made of biodegradable thermoplastic material.
Dayton discloses a similar re-closable container (100) with a body made of paper pulp with a molded attached closure component (202, 212, 214) that is made of a biodegradable plastic resin (Col. 7 Lines 56-64). Brooks and Dayton are analogous inventions in the art of fiber based container bodies with attached closure mechanisms.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Brooks to be a biodegradable thermoplastic material as taught in Dayton in order to make the entire joined container be compostable (Col. 1 Lines 56-65 and Col. 2 Lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 2, Brooks discloses the container further includes a connection element (disc 30) in the area of the opening around hole 31, wherein the flexible hinge strip is connected to the container at the connection element. As discussed above, the other component of the lid may be made to be of biodegradable material as discussed in Dayton.
Regarding Claim 3, Brooks discloses the flexible hinge strip is bonded to the lid.
Regarding Claim 7, Brooks discloses the container is wax coated. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that carnauba wax and beeswax are typical waxes used to waterproof the interiors of fiber-based containers.
Regarding Claim 8, Dayton discloses the biodegradable thermoplastic material (corn based PLA or similar biodegradable resin) is compostable.
Regarding Claim 9, Brooks discloses the connection element is connected to the container by adhesive bonding (Col. 4 Lines 20-22). Similarly Dayton discloses the polymer connection element is attached by form-fitting and adhesive bonding (Col. 7 Lines 4-10).
Regarding Claim 16, Brooks discloses the flexible hinge strip is connected to the container by adhesive bonding (Col. 4 Lines 48-58).
Regarding Claim 18, as discussed above in Claim 1, Brooks in view of Dayton disclose biodegradable molded fiber container comprising a lid and a body including an opening. Brooks discloses a flexible hinge strip including a main planar upper section and a forming the hinge lateral section. Brooks discloses a connection element at disc 30 and a biodegradable or bioinert coating on the interior of the fiber container body. Dayton discloses a container is molded from biodegradable fiber material which may be substituted for the folded and joined body disclosed in Brooks as the simple substitution of the type of fiber pulp based material.
Dayton discloses a lid made of biodegradable thermoplastic material. Brooks discloses the flexible hinge strip is made of biodegradable fiber material (kraft paper). Dayton discloses the use of connection elements made of biodegradable thermoplastic material. Brooks discloses the connection element is connected to the body of the container and the connection element is connected to the lid by the flexible hinge strip. Brooks discloses the main section of the flexible hinge strip is connected to the lid and the lateral section of the flexible hinge strip is connected to connection element. The flexible hinge strip facilitates opening or closing the lid.
While Brooks does not disclose that the connection element stabilizes the opening, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by bonding the solid disc (30) to the upper mouth of the container as discussed in Col. 4 Lines 20-30, the opening of the container would be reinforced as a consequence. Please also note the construction of Brooks (US 2398405) which discloses an insertable lid connection member in a similar paperboard hinge-flap container.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Brooks (US 2577304) in view of Dayton (US 9452863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (US 2465842) – hereinafter Brooks ‘842.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Brooks discloses the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Brooks does not disclose the at least one flexible hinge strip includes at least one seal section, wherein the at least one seal section is connected to the container, and wherein the at least one seal section is perforated and separated along a perforation when the at least one lid is opened.
Brooks ‘842 discloses a similar fiber container (10) with a flexible hinge strip (14) having at least one seal section (15) wherein the at least one seal section is perforated at 19 and separated along a perforation when the at least one lid (16) is opened as shown in Figures 6 and 7 and discussed in Col. 4 Lines 61-73. Modified Brooks and Brooks ‘842 are analogous inventions in the art of fiber containers having adhesive-film applied hinge lids.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge strip of Modified Brooks with the perforations Brooks ‘842 in order to enable tearing the strip along its perforations in addition to providing a graspable tab (21) (Col. 5 Lines 8-15). Please also note that this would also provide a tamper-evidencing feature known in the art as seen in Pinkstone (US 12084242) Elements 343 with tear lines 351 to provide a tamper-evident portion 355.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Brooks as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of West (US 2012/0097632) and Peterson (US 6099975).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Brooks discloses the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. While Dayton discloses the use of a fiber container body and a bonded connection element of biodegradable material, Modified Brooks in view of Dayton does not disclose the at least one connection element includes a connecting wall surrounding the at least one opening and a plurality of holes through which the fiber material of the container extends.
West discloses a molded paper container (100) with a hetero-compositional molded frame (114) used to reinforce the container neck and may be molded inside of, outside of, or with the pulp molded container portion (Paragraph 0030). Similarly, Peterson discloses a molded connection system for embedding a threaded connection member (20) within a molded bottle wherein the connection member includes a plurality of holes (30, 40 and 50). Modified Brooks, West, and Peterson are analogous inventions in the art of bottles, containers, and the manufacture thereof.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Brooks with the connection element of Peterson and molded within the fiber material as taught by West to further reinforce the molded fiber material (West Paragraph 0020) and to have the connection element be permanently molded within the container that is not susceptible to expansion or contraction forces experienced by the container body and strengthens the container body (Peterson Col. 4 Lines 65-67 and Col. 4 Lines 48-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736