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 .
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) 16-22, 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US-2010912-A) in view of Trani et al. (US-9011307-B2).
Regarding claim 16:
Brooks discloses a paper lid (3; pg. 1, col. 1, lines 14-18), comprising: a central lid panel (4), and a fitting flange (5); wherein the fitting flange is adapted to be arranged on a receptacle of a container (2), the fitting flange is made of a spirally wound paper material (pg. 1, col. 2, lines 28-31), the fitting flange forms a radially outer side of the paper lid (Fig. 1), and a thread on a radially inner side of the fitting flange (pg. 2, col. 3, lines 21-30).
Brooks fails to teach a groove that is formed in the radially outer side of the fitting flange and forms the thread.
Trani teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a thread on a paper lid with an extending groove (Fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid of Brooks with a groove thread structure, as taught by Trani, in order to provide the lid with a connection structure and such a modification would be the use of a known thread structure on a known lid for connecting a lid and receptacle together. Since the structure of Brooks teaches the lid on an outside of the container, the thread groove would be in the radially outer side of the fitting flange that forms that radially outer side of the paper lid.
Regarding claim 17:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above wherein an upper portion of the fitting flange is connected to the central lid panel (Fig. 2; pg. 1, col. 2, limes 31-35), but fails to teach an adhesive.
Keith teaches that it was known in the art to connect components together with an adhesive (col. 3, lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with an adhesive, in order to provide a more permanent connection between components of the lid.
Regarding claims 18-20:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above but fails to teach the claimed thicknesses.
Keith teaches that thickness are a known concern within the art (col. 2, ll. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the components with the claimed thickness, in order to adjust the strength of the components and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above wherein an upper portion of the fitting flange forms a folded portion, and the folded portion receives an upwardly folded flange of the central lid panel (Brooks, Fig. 2; pg. 1, col. 2, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 22:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above wherein the central lid panel and the fitting flange are integrally made from a sheet of paper material that can be the same sheet (Brooks, Fig. 2; product by process).
Regarding claim 24:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above but fails to teach wherein an upper circumferential groove is formed in the radially outer side of the fitting flange, the upper circumferential groove forms a circumferential protrusion on a radially inner side of the fitting flange, and an insert panel is arranged on the circumferential protrusion.
Keith teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a paper lid wherein an upper circumferential groove (at 8) is formed in the radially outer side of the fitting flange, the upper circumferential groove forms a circumferential protrusion (8) on a radially inner side of the fitting flange, and an insert panel is arranged on the circumferential protrusion (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid of Brooks with the protrusion and panel taught by Keith, in order to better protect contents of the receptacle.
Regarding claim 26:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above and a container comprising: a receptacle (2) comprised of glass or paper material or cardboard material or plastic material or plurilaminate material, or polylaminate material (pg. 1, col. 2, lines 28-30), and a paper lid (3) according to claim 16, wherein the container comprises a corresponding thread on an outer surface of the container, and wherein the thread formed on the radially inner side of the fitting flange is adapted to engage or mate with the corresponding thread on the outer surface of the container (modified structure of Brooks).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US-2010912-A) in view of Trani et al. Trani et al. (US-9011307-B2) and Moore (US-2746669-A).
Regarding claim 23:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above wherein the spirally wound paper material of the fitting flange is laminated (Brooks, pg. 2, col. 1, lines 34-36), but fails to teach polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polylactide, or polypropylene.
Moore teaches that it was known in the art to laminate a paper material with polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polylactide, or polypropylene (col. 4, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the laminate with the claimed materials, in order to adjust for different receptacle contents 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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US-2010912-A) in view of Trani et al. (US-9011307-B2) and Koch et al. (US-1985998-A).
Regarding claim 27:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above but fails to teach wherein a stack of at least two containers, wherein a bottom of an upper container of at least two containers is arranged on a stacking portion of a paper lid of the lower container of the at least two containers.
Koch teaches that it was known in the art to stack like containers together (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container to be stackable, as taught by Koch, in order to improve storage and transport of a plurality of containers.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (US-2010912-A) in view of Trani et al. (US-9011307-B2) and Wilde (US-4674643-A).
Regarding claim 32:
The modified lid of Brooks teaches all the limitations shown above but fails to teach wherein the thread has asymmetrical thread angles with respect to a normal direction of the fitting flange .
Wilde teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture closure threads with asymmetrical thread angles (col. 2, ll. 57 – col. 3, ll. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with asymmetrical threading, as taught by Wilde, in order to improve load bearing structure of the threads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Brooks teaches away from a threaded configuration, this is not found persuasive because Brooks explicitly teaches that threads can be used as shown above. Brooks is concerned with sealing and cost. Tani is also concerned with these considerations (col. 1, ll. 26 – col. 2, ll. 41). One or ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine these teachings as discussed. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights