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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinkai (JP 2010137902; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Shinkai discloses, A lid (1) comprising: a main body (See annotated fig. below) formed in such a way as to be contactable with a container including an opening (See annotated fig. below) and an edge (22) forming an outer periphery of the opening, wherein the main body includes an insertion part (Fig. 2) configured to be capable of forming an insertion hole, the insertion part includes a hole lid (See annotated fig. below) that covers the insertion hole and a weakened part (11) that forms at least a part of an outer circumferential edge (See annotated fig. below) of the hole lid ,the weakened part includes a plurality of cuts (13) penetrating the main body in a thickness direction of the main body and a non-penetrating part (15) where the main body is not penetrated and at least a part of the fracture surface is located at a tip of the hole lid.
The limitation “the insertion hole is formed by applying stress to the insertion part from outside in the thickness direction of the main body, and when the insertion hole is formed, the non-penetrating part is broken, the broken non-penetrating part forms a fracture surface in a part of the outer circumferential edge of the hole lid, the hole lid is displaced together with the fracture surface” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Shinkai has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.See MPEP 2173.05(g). Herein, Shinkai has cut and non-penetrating part in a shape just as the instant application that allows for hole to be formed.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shinkai discloses, A lid (1) comprising: a main body (See annotated fig. below) formed in such a way as to be contactable with a container including an opening (See annotated fig. below) and an edge (22) forming an outer periphery of the opening, wherein the main body includes an insertion part (Fig. 2) configured to be capable of forming an insertion hole, the insertion part includes a hole lid (See annotated fig. below) that covers the insertion hole and a weakened part (11) that forms at least a part of an outer circumferential edge (See annotated fig. below) of the hole lid , the hole lid includes a corner (See annotated fig. below)forming a protruding portion of a contour in plan view of the main body, the weakened part includes a plurality of cuts (13) penetrating the main body in a thickness direction of the main body and a non-penetrating part (15) where the main body is not penetrated, and at least a part of the fracture surface is located at a tip of the hole lid.
The limitation “the insertion hole is formed by applying stress to the insertion part from outside in the thickness direction of the main body, and when the insertion hole is formed, the non-penetrating part is broken, the broken non-penetrating part forms a fracture surface in a part of the outer circumferential edge of the hole lid, the hole lid is displaced together with the fracture surface” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Shinkai has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Herein, Shinkai has cut and non-penetrating part in a shape just as the instant application that allows for hole to be formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
287
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Shinkai discloses, a plurality of the fracture surfaces is formed (when a straw goes through, all the adjoining corner pieces where 15 breaks become fracture surface) and when the non-penetrating part is broken, and at least a part of at least one of the fracture surfaces is located at the tip of the hole lid.
Regarding claim 4, Shinkai discloses, weakened part includes a plurality of the non-penetrating parts (15), and at least one of the non-penetrating parts is broken by applying stress to the insertion part from the outside in the thickness direction of the main body.
Regarding claim 5, Shinkai discloses, wherein the insertion part includes a plurality of the hole lids (See annotated fig. below), and when the insertion hole is formed, the fracture surface is formed in a part of the outer circumferential edge of each of the hole lids.
PNG
media_image3.png
287
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Shinkai discloses, weakened part has a structure in which at least three of the cuts are formed around the non-penetrating part (13 is around 15).
Regarding claim 8, Shinkai discloses, wherein a raised part (7) is formed, and the insertion part is formed in a formation region of the raised part (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Shinkai discloses, joining region corresponding part corresponding to a region (See annotated fig. below)joined to the container along the edge of the container (See annotated fig. below); and a lid region corresponding part (See annotated fig. below) that is a portion inside the joining region corresponding part, wherein the insertion part is formed in the lid region corresponding part.
PNG
media_image4.png
166
383
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Shinkai discloses a side wall (See annotated fig. below) is provided around an outer periphery of the main body, and the side wall is configured to be lockable to the container along the edge (22) of the container.
PNG
media_image5.png
166
371
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Shinkai discloses a container (20) the container including the opening and the edge forming the outer periphery of the opening, wherein the lid is joined to the container (Fig. 3) .
Regarding claim 14, Shinkai discloses, A combination of a lid and a container, comprising, the lid and the container including the opening and the edge forming the outer periphery of the opening (See annotated fig. of claim 1, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinkai (JP 2010137902 Fig. 4A; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Shinkai discloses, A lid (1) comprising: a main body (See annotated fig. below) formed in such a way as to be contactable with a container including an opening (See annotated fig. below) and an edge (22) forming an outer periphery of the opening, wherein the main body includes an insertion part (See annotated fig. below) configured to be capable of forming an insertion hole, the insertion part includes a hole lid (See annotated fig. below) that covers the insertion hole and a weakened part (11a) that forms at least a part of an outer circumferential edge (See annotated fig. below) of the hole lid ,the weakened part includes a plurality of cuts (28) penetrating the main body in a thickness direction of the main body and a non-penetrating part (15) where the main body is not penetrated, and at least a part of the fracture surface (surface where 15 breaks) is located at a tip of the hole lid.
The limitation “the insertion hole is formed by applying stress to the insertion part from outside in the thickness direction of the main body, and when the insertion hole is formed, the non-penetrating part is broken, the broken non-penetrating part forms a fracture surface in a part of the outer circumferential edge of the hole lid, the hole lid is displaced together with the fracture surface” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Shinkai has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Herein, Shinkai has cut and non-penetrating part in H shape just as the instant application that allows for hole to be formed.
PNG
media_image6.png
233
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Shinkai discloses, wherein the cuts each include a circumferential surface part (See annotated fig. below; part where cut starts/share part with outer side of lid) and ends (end where the first cut ends) , and when different two of the cuts are defined as a first cut (See annotated fig. below) and a second cut (See annotated fig. below), respectively, at least one pair of the first cut and the second cut is arranged such that the non- penetrating part (15) is formed between one of the ends of the first cut and the circumferential surface part of the second cut.
PNG
media_image7.png
235
702
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinkai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayter (CA 2956920).
Regarding claim 6, Shinkai does not disclose, the non-penetrating part has a half-cut structure in which the main body is cut to a predetermined depth in the thickness direction of the main body.
Hayter discloses a weakened line having a half-cut structure and cut line (page 27, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shinkai to have non-penetrating part that are half cut as taught by Hayter for the purpose of making the tearing process easy.
As a result, Shinkai as modified would have the non-penetrating part has a half-cut structure in which the main body is cut to a predetermined depth in the thickness direction of the main body.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinkai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Syed (US 20100252555).
Regarding claim 9, Shinkai does not explicitly disclose, the main body is formed of a paper-based material.
Syed discloses a container lid formed of a paper-based material (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shinkai to make the main body is formed of a paper-based material as taught by Syed as they are recyclable and less harmful to the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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 E. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736