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
Applicant's election with traverse of (Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the search for one invention would require searching in a manner unlikely to find art pertinent to the other (e.g., different classes/subclasses, different electronic resources, or different search queries) since they are not considered obvious variants of each other, in addition the different species, would require searching for specific structural differences that would require reviewing 1,000s of references depending on the non-obvious differences of each species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2022/0227546) which in figures 2C, 2D, 20B, 22A, 22E and 22F discloses the following claimed invention:
In re claim 1: A lid 1 formed so as to be in contact with a container 21 having an edge 22, and is formed of a blank material ([0217]), wherein the blank material includes a fiber sheet including fibers formed of a paper-based material ([0051}), and a resin material ([0052]) is attached to at least some of the fibers forming an inside of the fiber sheet ([0053]).
In re claim 2: a joining region corresponding part 11 that corresponds to a region (region with 22) joined to the container along the edge 22 of the container 21; and a lid region corresponding part 36 that is configured by a portion inside the joining region corresponding part 11, wherein the resin material ([0052]) is attached to at least some of the fibers forming an inside of the fiber sheet ([0051}) at least in a portion corresponding to the joining region corresponding part 11 (see figures 22E and 22F).
In re claim 3: a penetrating part 5/24 that is cut 5/24 from one surface to the other of the blank material ([0217]), wherein a cross section of the fiber sheet is exposed on a peripheral surface part of the penetrating part, and the resin material is exposed on at least a part of the cross section (once the blade cuts the sheet the resin coating and the filers of the paper are inherently exposed).
In re claim 4: an inclined part (the part of 2 which is between the top surface of 2 and the bottom surface of 2 where the cut exposed the inner area of 2which created a surface perpendicular to the top surface of 2) that has the peripheral surface part of the penetrating part 5/24 as an end part and inclined upward (90˚ incline) in a direction away from the end part (bottom surface of 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2022/0227546). Yamada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation:
In re claim 5: a density of the fibers comprising the fiber sheet in the inclined part is higher at a position closer to the end part of the inclined part.
Yamada further discloses the provision of an increased density of the sheet adjacent the cut (inclined part) at a position closer to the end part of the cut (inclined part) than an area away from the cut (see [0197]) in order to reinforce the region around the cut (straw opening). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to increase the density of the fiber sheet at a location directly adjacent the cut for the reason discussed above.
Furthermore, "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). It is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." (Id.) See also, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1742 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art that teaches and suggest structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights