Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 3-10-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
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 § 112
2. 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 14 and 24 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.
Claims 14 and 24 each recite the limitation "the plurality of holes not in the subset" in line 2 of each of claims 14 and 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, 20-23 and 25 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP Patent No. 155923 to Ohlson in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,471 to Burgan and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,992,802 to La Rue.
Referring to claim 7, Ohlson discloses a lid comprising, an upper surface – at upper portion of 3 as seen in figure 1, including a plurality of holes – at 5c – see figure 3, an engagement feature – at the sidewalls of 3 and at 3b, configured to engage the lid – at 3, with a container – at 2,2a – see page 4 lines 29-38 and figure 1, at least one leg – at 15-18, extending upwardly from the upper surface – see figure 1. Ohlson does not disclose a plurality of motion-preventing features arranged circumferentially around an outer perimeter of the lid, wherein each of the plurality of motion-preventing features prevent the lid from rolling when the lid is on its side. Burgan does disclose a plurality of motion-preventing features – at 18 in figures 1-2, - at 18L,18R in figure 3, - at 32-38 in figure 4, - at 42-50 in figure 5 and – at 52-62 in figure 6, arranged circumferentially around an outer perimeter of the lid – see figures 1-6, wherein each of the plurality of motion-preventing features prevent the lid from rolling when the lid is on its side – see figures 1-6 and column 1 lines 40-54 and column 2 line 58 to column 3 line 20. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson and add the motion-preventing features of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed engagement feature, the sidewalls – at 3 of Ohlson are at least functional equivalents in that these features of Ohlson provide similar function to the threads disclosed by applicant in that the sidewalls – at 3 of Ohlson provide for removable attachment of the lid to the container to access the container. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed motion preventing features, the motion preventing features of Burgan discloses faceted structure commensurate with applicant’s disclosed motion preventing features. Ohlson as modified by Burgan further discloses each of the plurality of motion-preventing features comprises a facet – see flat faceted structures - at 18L,18R in figure 3 of Burgan, - at 32-38 in figure 4 of Burgan, - at 42-50 in figure 5 of Burgan and – at 52-62 in figure 6 of Burgan. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson and add the motion-preventing features of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use. Ohlson as modified by Burgan does not disclose when the lid is on its side airflow is improved through the holes. La Rue does disclose when the lid – at 10,16, is on its side – see figures 1-4, airflow is improved through the hole – at 12 – see figures 1-4 where horizontal airflow will be allowed and improved versus the device being in a vertical orientation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson as modified by Buran and add the improved airflow through the hole(s) as disclosed by La Rue, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device to be placed and function in different positions as desired.
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue further discloses each one of the plurality of motion-preventing features/facets comprises a flat surface – see at 18 in figures 1-2 of Burgan, - at 18L,18R in figure 3 of Burgan, - at 32-38 in figure 4 of Burgan, - at 42-50 in figure 5 of Burgan and – at 52-62 in figure 6 of Burgan. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and add the motion-preventing features/facets of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use.
Referring to claims 10 and 20, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue further discloses more structures are contemplated as related to the motion-preventing features/facets as seen in column 3 lines 1-2 of Burgan but does not disclose the plurality of motion-preventing/facets features comprises twelve motion-preventing features/facets. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and add any suitable number of motion-preventing features/facets including the claimed twelve motion-preventing features/facets, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer by providing motion prevention capabilities along the entire circumference of the lid as desired.
Referring to claims 11 and 21, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue a plurality of interposed portions, each of which is interposed between two of the plurality of motion-preventing features/facets – see figures 5-6 of Burgan where items 42 and 48 can be interposed portions between motion-preventing features/facets – at 46,50 and – at 44,50 and items 52 and 58 are between motion-preventing features/facets – at 54,62 and – at 56-60. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and add the motion-preventing features/facets of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use.
Referring to claims 12 and 22, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue further discloses each of the at least one leg includes an outer surface – see outer portions of 15-18 in figure 1 of Ohlson, but does not disclose the leg outer surfaces are contiguous with a surface of a given one of the plurality of motion-preventing features/facets. However, it would have been obvious to take the device/method of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and integrally form the motion-preventing features/facets of Burgan into the device of Ohlson so as to have the legs and motion-preventing features being aligned and contiguous, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable and easier to manufacture.
Referring to claims 13 and 23, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue further discloses the upper surface comprises a recess including a subset – at 5, including a plurality of holes – at 5c – see figure 3 of Ohlson.
Referring to claims 15 and 25, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue further discloses the plurality of holes in the recess – at 5, are elongated – see slots detailed in page 6 lines 2-15 of Ohlson.
Referring to claim 17, Ohlson discloses a method comprising, engaging a lid – at 3, with a container – at 2 – see figure 1, the lid comprising, an upper surface – at upper portion of 3 as seen in figure 1, including a plurality of holes – at 5c – see figure 3, an engagement feature – at the sidewalls of 3 and at 3b, configured to engage the lid – at 3, with a container – at 2,2a – see page 4 lines 29-38 and figure 1, at least one leg – at 15-18, extending upwardly from the upper surface – see figure 1. Ohlson does not disclose a plurality of motion-preventing features arranged circumferentially around an outer perimeter of the lid, wherein each of the plurality of motion-preventing features prevent the lid and container from rolling when the lid and container are on their side with at least one of the motion-preventing features. Burgan does disclose a plurality of motion-preventing features – at 18 in figures 1-2, - at 18L,18R in figure 3, - at 32-38 in figure 4, - at 42-50 in figure 5 and – at 52-62 in figure 6, arranged circumferentially around an outer perimeter of the lid – see figures 1-6, wherein each of the plurality of motion-preventing features prevent the lid and container – not shown but detailed in column 2 lines 34-37, from rolling when the lid and container are on their side with at least one of the plurality of motion-preventing features – see figures 1-6 and column 1 lines 40-54 and column 2 line 58 to column 3 line 20. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Ohlson and add the motion-preventing features of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed engagement feature, the sidewalls – at 3 of Ohlson are at least functional equivalents in that these features of Ohlson provide similar function to the threads disclosed by applicant in that the sidewalls – at 3 of Ohlson provide for removable attachment of the lid to the container to access the container. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed motion preventing features, the motion preventing features of Burgan discloses faceted structure commensurate with applicant’s disclosed motion preventing features. Ohlson as modified by Burgan further discloses each of the plurality of motion-preventing features comprises a facet – see flat faceted structures - at 18L,18R in figure 3 of Burgan, - at 32-38 in figure 4 of Burgan, - at 42-50 in figure 5 of Burgan and – at 52-62 in figure 6 of Burgan. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson and add the motion-preventing features of Burgan, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device safer and to protect the contents of the container during use. Ohlson as modified by Burgan does not disclose when the lid is on its side airflow is improved through the holes. La Rue does disclose when the lid – at 10,16, is on its side – see figures 1-4, airflow is improved through the hole – at 12 – see figures 1-4 where horizontal airflow will be allowed and improved versus the device being in a vertical orientation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson as modified by Buran and add the improved airflow through the hole(s) as disclosed by La Rue, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the device to be placed and function in different positions as desired.
Claim(s) 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue as applied to claims 13 or 23 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,801,492 to Lin.
Referring to claims 14 and 24, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue does not disclose each of the plurality of holes in the subset are larger than each of the plurality of holes not in the subset. Lin does disclose each of the plurality of holes – at 54, in the subset – at 42-56, are larger than each of the plurality of holes – at 74, not in the subset – see figures 8-9. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and add the holes in the subset being larger than the holes not in the subset as disclosed by Lin, so as to yield the predictable result of controlling fluid flow through the device as desired.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue as applied to claims 7 or 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,240,658 to Chang.
Referring to claims 16 and 26, Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue does not disclose the engagement feature comprises threads configured to engage with corresponding threads on the container. Chang does disclose the engagement feature comprises threads – at 84, configured to engage with corresponding threads – at 61, on the container – at 6 – see figures 2-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Ohlson as modified by Burgan and La Rue and add the threads of Chang, so as to yield the predictable result of removably securing the lid to the container during use as desired.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-10-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7-26 detailed in the last office action dated 12-11-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 3-10-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 7-26 detailed in the last office action dated 12-11-25. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 3-10-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Further, the claim amendments of the improving airflow through the holes is not considered a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) new matter issue in that as seen in paragraph [0026] of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the airflow is disclosed as being improved with the lid having holes attached to the container and therefore implies the airflow is improved through the holes in the lid. Further, the device of the Ohlson reference EP 155923 can be put on its side when not in use such as during/after cleaning, during maintenance and during storage and therefore preventing rolling of the device of Ohlson would prevent the device of Ohlson from being damaged in between uses. Further, applicant’s claim amendments dated 3-10-26 have not positively recited in the claims that the claimed device is kept from rolling when the device is being used for its intended purpose and therefore the claims do not provide sufficient detail so as to overcome the Ohlson reference having a device than be kept from rolling during maintenance, cleaning and storage. It is recommended that applicant amend the independent claims to include claim limitations that positively recite the device is kept from rolling when the device is in use with contents disposed in the container.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643