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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 5/21/2026, wherein claims 11 and 16 were amended, claim 18 is new. Claims 11-18 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smyers (US 8534492 B2) in view of Underwood (US 4227625 A).
With respect to claim 11, Smyers discloses a molded part having an edge (portion in fig 9E) that has a locking portion (40, 100’,146, 130’) for locking on a container edge of a container, and a lid surface (figure 9D), wherein the locking portion is positioned in a transition from the edge to the lid surface and the locking portion has an undercut (figure 9E), wherein the edge has an edge portion (can consider 74) oriented at a different angle compared to the lid surface, wherein the molded part includes at least one sealing lip (figure 9E below) running on an inner side of the molded part, wherein the at least one sealing lip protrudes from a surface of the inner side of the molded part (as seen in figure 9E) and is aligned concentrically with an axis running orthogonally through the lid surface, and wherein the at least one sealing lip provides an additional holder relative to the locking portion (100’,146, 130’), wherein the at least one sealing lip (fig 9E) and the locking portion (100’,146, 130’) are arranged in such a way as to come into contact with a container edge along an entire circumference of the molded part (as accomplished by item 40 for the locking portion and the entirety of the sealing lip).
Examiner Note: undercut means “a space formed by the removal or absence of material from the lower part of something, such as a cliff, a coal seam, or part of a carving in relief.” (Oxford Languages )
Smyers failed to disclose of a fiber containing material. Smyers did teach of an injection molded polypropylene material (col 3 lines 14-17). However, in a similar filed of endeavor, namely containers with lids, Underwood taught of a lid made from injection molding that utilizes polypropylene and fibers in order to provide sufficient impact, tensile and flexural strength (Col 2 lines 39-53). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid (molded part) of Smyers to include reinforcing fibers as taught by Underwood in order to provide sufficient impact, tensile and flexural strength.
PNG
media_image1.png
297
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Smyers further discloses wherein at least part of the locking portion (40, 100’,146, 130’) and the at least one sealing lip (fig 9E) are aligned substantially parallel to each other.
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Smyers further discloses wherein the molded part has a side portion that is connected to the edge at a first region of the side portion via a transition surface (figure 9D above), wherein the side portion (figure 9D above) is connected to the lid surface at a second region (figure 9D above), wherein the side portion is oriented at a different angle compared to the lid surface or the transition surface, wherein the at least one sealing is positioned on an inner side of the molded part in a region of the transition surface (fig 9E and 9D), wherein the at least one sealing lip and the locking portion are arranged opposite one another so as to come into contact with a container wall in a region of the container edge on opposite sides of the container wall. (figure 9E)
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Smyers further discloses wherein the at least one sealing lip is formed as a material addition and an opposite portion of the transition surface on an outer side of the molded part is formed flat (transition surface of fig 9D is flat, better seen in 9E).
Examiner Note: the limitation “one sealing lip is formed as a material addition” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Smyers further discloses wherein the surface of the inner side of the molded part from which the at least one sealing lip protrudes is parallel to the lid surface. (can be seen in figure 9E above)
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20110180560 A1) in view of Underwood (US 4227625 A.
With respect to claim 11, Hung discloses a molded part, having an edge that has a locking portion (23, 221, 222, 223) for locking on a container edge of a container, and a lid surface (10), wherein the locking portion is positioned in a transition from the edge to the lid surface and the locking portion has an undercut (24), wherein the edge has an end portion (221) oriented at a different angle compared to the lid surface, wherein the molded part includes at least one sealing lip (21) running on an inner side of the molded part, wherein the at least one sealing lip (21) protrudes from a surface of the inner side of the molded part and is aligned concentrically with an axis running orthogonally through the lid surface, and wherein the at least one sealing lip (21) provides an additional holder relative to the locking portion (23, 221, 222, 223), wherein the at least one sealing lip (21) and the locking portion (specifically 221, 223) are arranged in such a way as to come into contact with a container edge along an entire circumference of the molded part.
Hung failed to disclose of a fiber containing material. However, in a similar filed of endeavor, namely containers with lids, Underwood taught of a lid made from injection molding that utilizes polypropylene and fibers in order to provide sufficient impact, tensile and flexural strength (Col 2 lines 39-53). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid (molded part) of Hung to include polypropylene material with reinforcing fibers as taught by Underwood in order to provide sufficient impact, tensile and flexural strength.
Examiner Note: “molded part” the term “molded” can be viewed as product-by-process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
PNG
media_image3.png
308
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
424
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein a longitudinal extension of the at least one sealing lip from inside substantially corresponds to a radius of the undercut. However, it is considered as a change of shape of Hungs design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of a radiused undercut and specific length of the sealing lip is only a modification in the shape of the sealing lip and under cut of Hungs and still provides the same results as Hung (i.e. allowing for mating between the lid and closure). Essentially, Hung and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the shape of Hungs undercut is a rectangular and the applications is a radiused cut. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their undercut and sealing lip is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing attachment of a closure from Hungs invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein a longitudinal extension of the at least one sealing lip from inside corresponds substantially to twice a radius of the undercut. However, it is considered as a change of shape of Hungs design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The implementation of a radiused undercut and specific length of the sealing lip is only a modification in the shape of the sealing lip and under cut of Hungs and still provides the same results as Hung (i.e. allowing for mating between the lid and closure). Essentially, Hung and the present invention operate the same with the same working pieces, the only difference is the shape of Hungs undercut is a rectangular and the applications is a radiused cut. In re Dailey established that a "change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results." The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their undercut and sealing lip is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing attachment of a closure from Hungs invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the at least one sealing lip (21) forms an extension of a receiving groove formed by the undercut (24).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-8534492-B2 OR US-4881658-A OR US-4227625-A OR US-5427266-A OR US-11613413-B2 OR US-8757429-B2 OR US-20110180560-A1 OR US-20180086511-A1 OR US-20210323735-A1 OR US-20180079561-A1 OR US-20230192363-A1 OR US-20160137359-A1 OR US-20150060477-A1 OR US-20140151387-A1 OR US-20140054308-A1 OR US-20110062158-A1 OR US-20090020545-A1 OR US-20080190951-A1 OR US-20080073346-A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants amendments overcomes the Lin reference and the prior reading of Smyers. However, a new view of Smyers which incorporates item 40 as part of the locking portion. The new interpretation meets the amended claim language. The claim language reads "... the locking portion are arranged in such a way as to come into contact with a container edge along an entire circumference of the molded part". Item 40 comes into contact with the container edge along the entire circumference. Further, the term locking portion is broadened by the term "portion" and encompasses multiple components. Item 40 can be considered as part of the portion.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights