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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Amended Claims of May 28, 2026, Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 16 and 18 are pending. Claims 3, 4, and 10 are canceled. Claims 5, 6, 11-15, and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 8, 11, 12, and 18 are amended.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US 2577304) in view of Brooks (US 2465842) – hereinafter Brooks ‘842.
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. While Brooks discloses the container body is made of fiber material, Brooks does not disclose the lid is made of a biodegradable material. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that similar materials may be used for the lid as the container body as the simple substitution of known container materials.
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. 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.
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. The other component of the lid may be made to be of biodegradable material as the simple substitution of one known material for another that would provide no unexpected results.
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, the biodegradable material of Brooks is water soluble and compostable.
Regarding Claim 9, Brooks discloses the connection element is connected to the container by adhesive bonding (Col. 4 Lines 20-22).
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 discloses biodegradable 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. While Brooks does not disclose the fiber material is molded, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that a molded fiber container may be substituted for the folded fiber board as the simple substitution of one known fiber container material for another that would produce no unexpected results in the function of the container.
Brooks discloses the flexible hinge strip is made of biodegradable fiber material (kraft paper).
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.
As discussed above, Brooks ‘842 discloses wherein 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 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.
On Page 8 of the Remarks and Arguments of May 28, 2026, Applicant argues that Brooks fails to disclose the container is made of fiber material. Applicant believes that while Brooks discloses a blank of paper of fiber board, this is different from molded pulp fiber. The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a MOLDED pulp fiber container) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, as Brooks specifically does disclose a fiber container, as claimed, the limitation is met by the reference.
On Pages 9-10 of the Remarks and Arguments, Applicant argues that the sealing closure of Brooks ‘842 comprises a relatively thin flexible sealing sheet that covers the entire opening of the container. Applicant argues that this is not the same as the seal section of the flexible hinge strip of the present invention. The present invention includes a separate structure of a lid which closes and seals the container with the seal section of the flexible hinge strip is an additional tamper-evident seal which does not close the opening of the container. Thus, Applicant argues that Brooks ‘842 fails to show claimed flexible hinge strip with at least one seal section having a perforated section which is separated when the lid is opened.
The Examiner disagrees.
Brooks ‘842 DOES INDEED disclose a separate lid closure in the form of insert or disc (16) which is directly analogous to Brooks Element 32. The sealing sheet (15) includes the hinge (18) and perforated sections (19) that are directly analogous to Applicant’s claimed structure.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant argues that Brooks discloses a disc (30) which is permanently bonded to the ledges or shoulders at the top of the container. Applicant believes the permanent bonding of a separate disc (30) does not provide reinforcement and stability for the opening as claimed.
The Examiner again disagrees and believes that the adhesive bonding of a separate element to the container top seen in Brooks would inherently serve to stabilize the container opening.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights