DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-155055 (Kawakami) in view of US 2,427,697 (Weilder) and US 3,647,132 (Crabtree).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami (embodiment of Figure 6) teaches a container for holding contents therein, the container comprising:
a first part (1) comprising a plurality of corners (4a) including a first corner and a second corner (any two of the corners as seen in Figure 6 can be represented as a first and second corner) and wherein the first part comprises a molded fiber (not taught), and
a second part (31) comprising a rim (33) extending around its perimeter, the second part defining a first opening (one of slits 35) at the rim at a first rim corner, the second part defining a second opening (a second of slits 35) at the rim at a second rim corner and wherein the second part comprises a molded fiber (not taught),
wherein the first corner is configured to be received in the first opening and the second corner is configured to be received in the second opening thereby providing a snap fit closure between the first part and the second part (explicitly stated in para. [0022]), and
wherein an audible sound is generated upon receipt of the first corner in the first opening (not taught).
Kawakami fails to teach that: the first part comprises a molded fiber;
the second part comprises a molded fiber; and
wherein an audible sound is generated upon receipt of the first corner in the first opening.
In other words, Examiner exmphasizes that Kawakami appears to teach all physical structures of the claimed invention, and only fails to explicitly teach the claimed material, and the functional result – an audible sound - of interactions of the structures already found in the reference.
Weilder, analogous to paper articles, teaches the known equivalence of alternatively forming articles made of “blank material” (understood in the art to comprise materials like cardboard) from “pulp material in a single molding operation” (col. 2, lines 26-32).
Crabtree, analogous to molding paper articles, teaches that a pulp molding method (col. 2, lines 53-58) is capable of producing lids comprising openings (54) defined within a rim (38) and which are capable of interlocking with protruding buttons (66), a structure which is similar to that of the lid of Kawakami.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Kawakami, forming it from a pulp molding process as taught by Weilder, and which method has a high likelihood of success as taught by Crabtree, motivated by the use of a suitable alternative manufacturing process, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if 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”.
Accordingly, Examiner asserts an audible sound is inherent, because of the resilient interlocking of the container base corners (4a) of Kawakami into the lid slots (35), even if such sound is quiet, because of the interference required to pass the corner regions (34) over the container corners. Such interference will inherently produce a sound of some level, if not solely from the friction of the two elements rubbing against each other. Should Applicant disagree, Examiner further asserts it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lid and container such that the resulting interlock is loud, motivated by the benefit of informing a user that the interlock process has been completed, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, the first part is a base and the second part is a lid (1 is described as a container body, and 31 is described a lid).
Regarding claim 3, the first part is a lid and the second part is a base (Examiner asserts no structure or function is read into the term “lid” and “base”, and the claim limitation is met by inverting the combined container of Kawakami, e.g. in order to store a cake using the inner surface of the lid as the base, and the container body becoming a dome-like cover).
Regarding claim 4, the first opening, the second opening, or both is a slot (openings 35 are taught to be slots; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, the first opening, the second opening, or both has an oblong shape, a circular shape, a semi-circular shape, a polygonal shape, an asymmetrical shape, or a symmetrical shape (slits 35 comprise a rectangular shape, as seen in Kawakami Figure 6, which is read as a polygonal or symmetrical shape).
Regarding claim 8, the lid comprises a renewable, compostable, or recycled material (paper pulp is well-known to be renewable and/or compostable).
Regarding claim 11, the base comprises a renewable, compostable, or recycled material (paper pulp is well-known to be renewable and/or compostable).
Regarding claim 12, the first corner is oversized relative to the first opening so that, when the first corner is received in the first opening, the first corner extends completely through the first opening (Kawakami teaches corners 4a are guided into slits 35 and “protrude outward through the slit” in para. [0022]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. More specifically, Examiner notes Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 were taken from separately dependent claims, not a liner chain of dependent claims, and thus amended claim 1 comprises a new claim scope beyond that which was previously considered. 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 JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights