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) 11-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomfield (US-2454126-A) in view of Griswold (US-2481111-A) and Downs et al. (US-3494094-A).
Regarding claim 11:
Bloomfield discloses a metallic reclosable lid to seal a container (col. 1, lines 9-17) comprising: a central panel (58) with an upper surface and a bottom surface, the central panel being substantially flat (Fig. 2); a substantially vertical portion (56) extending downwardly from a perimeter of the central panel; and a liner (52) attached to the bottom surface of the central panel, the liner having a pull ring (50).
Bloomfield fails to teach a curl extending outwardly from a lower end of the substantially vertical portion and extending around a circumference of the metallic reclosable lid, the liner having a securing bead around at least a portion of a perimeter of the liner and an indentation.
Griswold teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a lid (Fig. 1) with a curl (25) extending outwardly from a lower end of a substantially vertical portion and extending around a circumference of the lid (Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the lid of Bloomfield with a curl, as taught by Griswold, in order to reduce sharp edges on the lid or in order to strengthen the lid.
Downs teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a liner (Fig. 3) with a securing bead (19) around at least a portion of a perimeter of the liner for securing the liner on a container (col. 2, lines 51-52), wherein the liner has an indentation (Fig. 3, outer surface adjacent 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the lid of Bloomfield with a bead and indentation, as taught by Downs, in order to create a more secure connection on the lid on the container and since such a modification would be the use of a known connection structure between a container and lid.
Regarding claims 12-15 and 18, the modified lid of Bloomfield teaches:
12. The metallic reclosable lid of claim 11, wherein the securing bead is configured to engage a peripheral curl of the container to secure the metallic reclosable lid to the container (Downs, col. 2, lines 51-52), wherein the securing bead extends entirely around the perimeter of the liner (Downs, Fig. 2, col. 2, lines 50-53).
13. The metallic reclosable lid of claim 11, wherein the pull ring extends outwardly beyond a perimeter of the curl (Bloomfield, Fig. 2).
14. The metallic reclosable lid of claim 11, wherein the liner is pliable, the securing bead is pliable, and the pull ring is pliable (Bloomfield, col. 2, lines 14-17, 43-48).
15. The metallic reclosable lid of claim 11, wherein the indentation is formed on a surface of the liner facing away from the bottom surface of the central panel, the indentation extending from an edge of liner toward a center of the liner (Downs, Figs. 2, 3).
18. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 13, wherein the securing bead extends entirely around the perimeter of the liner (Downs, Fig. 2, col. 2, lines 50-53).
20. The metallic reclosable lid of claim 11, wherein the securing bead defines the perimeter of the liner (Downs, Fig. 2, col. 2, lines 50-53).
Claim(s) 1-10, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloomfield (US-2454126-A) as modified by Griswold (US-2481111-A) and Downs et al. (US-3494094-A) above, and further in view of Calleson et al. (US-2384810-A).
Regarding claim 1:
The modified lid of Bloomfield teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above, and a container (Bloomfield, 60), the container comprising a sidewall have an upper end and a lower end; a closed bottom end extending from the lower end of the sidewall; an opening at the upper end opposite the closed bottom end ((Bloomfield, col. 1, lines 1-17).
The modified lid of Bloomfield fails to teach a metallic container having a container curl around a perimeter of the upper end, wherein the securing bead is operatable to engage the container curl to secure the reclosable lid to the metallic container.
Calleson teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a container as a metallic container (col. 3, lines 28-29), wherein the container includes a container curl (18) around a perimeter of an upper end, wherein a securing bead is operatable to engage the container curl to secure a lid to the metallic container (col. 5, lines 11-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Bloomfield to be metallic, as taught by Calleson, in order to adjust the cost or strength of the container 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Bloomfield with a curl, as taught by Calleson, in order to reduce sharp edges on the container and since such a modification would be the use of a known container connection structure in order to secure a lid to the container. In general, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the modified lid of Bloomfield on the container taught by Calleson, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of known containers to achieve the same result. The lid would perform the same function on either container.
Regarding claims 2-10, the modified container and lid of Bloomfield teaches:
2. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein the liner has a pull ring (Bloomfield, 50) that extends from a portion of a perimeter of the liner and extends out beyond a perimeter of the lid (Bloomfield, Fig. 2).
3. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 2, wherein the liner is pliable, the securing bead is pliable, and the pull ring is pliable (Bloomfield, col. 2, lines 14-17 and 43-48).
4. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein the liner is pliable and the securing bead is pliable (Bloomfield, col. 2, lines 14-17 and 43-48).
5. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein the metallic container further comprises a domed portion (Calleson, 23) in the closed bottom end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container out of aluminum, in order to adjust cost 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.
6. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 5, wherein the metallic container further comprises a well extending downwardly from the lower end of the sidewall (Calleson, at 24), the well having an interior wall interconnected on an upper end to a perimeter of the domed portion (Calleson, Fig. 1).
7. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the reclosable lid has a thickness that is larger than a thickness of the liner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the components with different thicknesses in order to adjust costs 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.
8. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein the reclosable lid is formed of a metallic material (Bloomfield, col. 1, lines 9-17).
9. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein the metallic container further comprises a neck (Calleson, 12) proximate to the upper end of the sidewall.
10. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 1, wherein a free end of the lid curl is proximate to the substantially vertical portion of the reclosable lid (Downs, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16:
The modified lid of Bloomfield teaches all the claimed limitations as shown in the rejection to claim 1 above, wherein the securing bead engages the container curl to secure the metallic reclosable lid to the metallic container (Calleson, col. 5, lines 11-21).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, the modified container and lid of Bloomfield teaches
17. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 16, wherein the liner has a pull ring (Bloomfield, 50) that extends from a portion of a perimeter of the liner and extends out beyond a perimeter of the reclosable lid (Bloomfield, Fig. 2).
19. The metallic container and reclosable lid of claim 16, wherein liner further comprises an indentation formed on a surface of the liner facing away from the bottom surface of the central panel, the indentation extending from a center of the liner toward the securing bead (Downs, Fig. 2, col. 2, lines 50-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all of the prior art relied on is drawn to sealing lids for containers.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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). In this case, the motivation relied on in the rejection above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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