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Claims 11-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, Species A, claims 1-10, figures 1-2c in the reply filed on the above date is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Albright (US 20190291914 A1).
Albright discloses:
1. (Original) A lid (figs 1-19) for a container (capable of performing the above intended use), comprising: a lid body (Adjacent 12) comprising one or more inner ribs (as in figs 19 for example in figs 5-7, adjacent features 14/32/30/11/34/50), each of the one or more inner ribs having a trough and a peak and an outer bead (as in the below figure), wherein: the one or more inner ribs are concentrically aligned on the lid body radially inward from the outer bead (as in fig 5-7); and the one or more inner ribs are each characterized by a width of greater than 1.65 mm measured from the trough of the inner rib to the peak of the inner rib (paragraphs 70-74); and a tab fixed to the lid body (tab in figs 1-19). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more inner ribs is characterized by a height of less than or about 0.50 mm measured from a peak of each of the one or more inner ribs to a trough of each of the one or more inner ribs (paragraphs 70-74). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
3. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein the outer bead is characterized by a depth of less than or about 0.40 mm measured from a peak of the outer bead to a trough of the outer bead (paragraphs 70-74). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
4. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more inner ribs is characterized by an angle of between about 20 and about 500 relative to a plane extending through and parallel to a center panel of the lid body (paragraphs 70-74). If there is any question would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
5. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein the trough of each of the one or more inner ribs is greater than or about 0.10 mm lower than a lowest surface of the outer bead (paragraphs 70-74). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
6. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein the peak of each of the one or more inner ribs is greater than or about 0.05 mm lower than a lowest surface of the outer bead (paragraphs 70-74). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
7. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein a concave side of the trough of each of the one or more inner ribs is characterized by a radius of greater than or about 0.50 mm (paragraphs 70-74). If there any question to the above dimensions, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
8. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein the lid body comprises a first inner rib and a second inner rib (as in fig 5), wherein: the first inner rib is positioned inward of the second inner rib; a concave side of the trough of the first inner rib is characterized by a radius of between about 0.55 mm and about 1.05 mm and a concave side of the trough of the second inner rib is characterized by a radius of between about 0.65 mm and about 1.05 mm (paragraphs 70-74). If there is any question would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
9. (Original) The lid for a container of claim 1, wherein an outer perimeter of the lid body defines a tear panel for removing the lid from a container (as in paragraphs 69-70).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dey (US 20140360895 A1).
Albright discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Dey: wherein a coating is disposed on a surface of the lid body (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Albright in view of Dey (by providing the above coating to the body) in order to protect the contents of the device and improve bonding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights