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 without traverse of group III (claims 11-14) in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a locking portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A locking portion is already introduced on lines 1-2. Claims 12-17 directly or indirectly depend from claim 11 and are also rejected.
The term “different orientation” in claims 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different orientation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what an orientation means in this context. The standard definition of orientation is “the determination of the relative position of something or someone” (Oxford Languages). The claim states items (edge and lid surface) that are interconnected. How would one describe the orientation of the edge? The edge is not a planar item, it extends in many different directions. The edge part that connects to the side portion seems to connect in a horizontal direction, the lid surface that connects to the side portion appears to connect in the horizontal direction. Could this be considered the same (horizontal) orientation? For the purposes of examination, different orientation shall be assumed to be each feature having a different position than another. Since no feature occupies the same space, this limitation is met by having separate features.
The term “wherein the locking portion and the at least one sealing lip are aligned substantially parallel to each other ” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein the locking portion and the at least one sealing lip are aligned substantially parallel to each other ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The sealing lip and the locking portion are connected to one another. Further, the locking portion has a complex geometry. How can the sealing lip and locking portion be considered parallel to one another when they are connected? These features are adjacent one another and separate, however, it is unclear the interpretation of the term “parallel”. Parallel is traditionally defines as “side by side and having the same distance continuously between them”. There is no distance between these two features.
The term “wherein the at least one sealing lip runs on an inner side of the molded part in a region of the transition surface ” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein the at least one sealing lip runs on an inner side of the molded part in a region of the transition surface ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This claim appears to contradict claim 1. Claim 1 states "wherein the molded part includes at least one sealing lip running on an inner side of the molded part in a region of the lid surface". This states that the sealing lip is on the lid surface. However, claim 16 states that the sealing lip is on the transition surface. The transition surface is not said to be part of the lid surface. Therefore, both statements cannot be true.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Lin (TW I610007 B).
With respect to claim 11, Lin discloses a molded part made of a fiber-containing material (page 1 [0001] under “Claims” heading), having an edge (12) that has a locking portion for locking on a container edge of a container, and a lid surface (10 plus portion with sealing lip), wherein the edge has a locking portion in a transition to the lid surface and the locking portion has an undercut (figure 1), wherein the edge has a different orientation (see 112b above) compared to the lid surface, wherein the molded part includes at least one sealing lip (see figure 1) running on an inner side (consider inner surface of lid surface) of the molded part in a region of the lid surface, which is aligned concentrically with an axis running orthogonally through the lid surface and provides an additional holder relative to the locking portion, wherein the at least one sealing lip and the locking portion are arranged in such a way as to come into contact with a container edge at least on substantially opposite sides (mating arrangement seen in figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
426
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Lin discloses the molded part according to claim 11, wherein a longitudinal extension of the at least one sealing lip (figure 1) from inside substantially corresponds to a radius of the undercut (figure 1).
Examiner Note: One can consider only a portion of the inner surface of the downwardly extending wall identified in figure 1. The bounds of the sealing lip are not limited. For example, the claims do not discuss a change of topography to distinguish the sealing lip from adjacent features.
With respect to claim 13, Lin discloses the molded part according to claim 11, wherein a longitudinal extension of the at least one sealing lip (labeled in figure 1) from inside corresponds substantially to twice a radius of the undercut. (as seen in figure 7)
Examiner Note: The bounds of the sealing lip are not limited. For example, one can consider the inner surface of the downwardly extending wall identified in figure 1.
With respect to claim 14, Lin discloses the molded part according to claim 11, wherein the at least one sealing lip forms an extension of a receiving groove formed by the undercut. (labels are on figure 1, groove created by the undercut and sealing lip combined)
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 15-17 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 (100’,146, 130’) for locking on a container edge of a container, and a lid surface (figure 9D), wherein the edge has a locking portion in a transition to the lid surface and the locking portion has an undercut (figure 9E), wherein the edge has a different orientation (see 112b above) 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 in a region of the lid surface, which is aligned concentrically with an axis running orthogonally through the lid surface and 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 at least on substantially opposite sides .
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_image3.png
297
427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
368
399
media_image4.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 the locking portion (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 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 edge and the side portion have a different orientation (see 112b above) with respect to the lid surface or the transition surface, wherein the at least one sealing lip runs 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).)
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
Conclusion
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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735