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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “24B” has been used to designate inwardly facing surface and conical surface.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if an end of line 5 is a newly recited structure or refers back to an upper end of line 2. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) further in view of Takano (US 20240092541).
Claim 1: Elliot discloses a lid 10 (snap cap) for closing a receptacle, said lid 10 (snap cap) having a deck configured to cover an end of the receptacle, and furthermore having a circumferential skirt extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the circumferential skirt having an inner side on which a locking means 18 (snap bead) is formed to attach the lid 10 (snap cap) to an end ridge of the receptacle, the deck having a peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) a ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein characterized in that at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral rim is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral rim is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) (see fig. 1 and annotated figure 2 below).
Elliot does not disclose wherein the peripheral rim flares radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt.
Takano teaches a lid 1 having a cover wall 2 and a lower wall 6 extending from the cover wall 2, wherein at an outer periphery of the cover wall 2 a standing part 4 and upper wall 5 are formed which protrude from the cover wall 2 and have a free end, wherein the standing part 4 and upper wall 5 flare radially outward with respect to the lower wall 6 and have a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peripheral rim to flare radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt and have a conical radially inward facing surface, as taught by Takano, in order to better guide the circumferential skirt into proper alignment with the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) upon stacking of lids 10 (snap caps).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the peripheral rim has a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4 ‘541).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the circumferential skirt has a recess at the free end, which recess has a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the conical radially inward facing surface of the peripheral rim (see annotated fig. 2 above, fig. 3, and fig. 2 & 4 ‘541).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) has an outer diameter which is adapted to substantially mate with some bottom side of some receptacle thereby facilitating stacking of capped receptacles (see fig. 2).
Claim 7: The combination discloses the lid 10 (snap cap) being made of a plastic (thermoplastic material) (see C. 2 L. 49-52).
Claim 15: Elliot discloses a lid 10 (snap cap) for closing a receptacle, said lid 10 (snap cap) having a deck configured to cover an end of the receptacle, and furthermore having a circumferential skirt extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the circumferential skirt having an inner side on which a locking means 18 (snap bead) is formed to attach the snap cap to an end ridge of the receptacle, the deck having a peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) a ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral rim is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral rim is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), and wherein the peripheral skirt has a recess at the free end, which recess has a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the inward facing surface of the peripheral rim (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 above).
Elliot does not disclose wherein the peripheral rim has a conical radially inward facing surface or the recess having a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the conical radially inward facing surface of the peripheral rim.
Takano teaches a lid 1 having a cover wall 2 and a lower wall 6 extending from the cover wall 2, wherein at an outer periphery of the cover wall 2 a standing part 4 and upper wall 5 are formed which protrude from the cover wall 2 and have a free end, wherein the standing part 4 and upper wall 5 flare radially outward with respect to the lower wall 6 and have a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peripheral rim to flare radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt and have a conical radially inward facing surface, as taught by Takano, in order to better guide the circumferential skirt into proper alignment with the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) upon stacking of lids 10 (snap caps).
The combination results in the recess having a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the conical radially inward facing surface of the peripheral rim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) and Takano (US 20240092541) further in view of Varadajaran (EP 1561696)
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the deck has said ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone), and has a depressed central area 15 (recessed central circular zone) (see fig. 2).
The combination does not disclose wherein the recessed central circular zone is on a level below the outer ring shaped zone.
Varadajaran teaches an overcap 12 having a top panel 30 having an outer ring shaped zone, an elevated ring shaped zone radially inward from the outer ring shaped zone, and a recessed central circular zone that is thinner than the outer ring shaped zone such that it is on a level below the outer ring shaped zone (see annotated fig. 2 below and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the depressed central area 15 (recessed central circular zone) to be thinner than and on a level below the ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone), as taught by Varadajaran, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
PNG
media_image2.png
413
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) and Takano (US 20240092541) and further in view of Thivet (EP 1935800).
Claim 8: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the deck has a thickness within a range 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has an average thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the deck with a thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to reduce materials and associated costs and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 9: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the skirt has a thickness within a range 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has an average thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the skirt with a thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to reduce materials and associated costs and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 10: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the snap cap has a diameter within a range of 80 mm - 140 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has a diameter of 100 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the lid 10 (snap cap) with a diameter of 100 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to close a like sized receptacle and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sven (US 3391850) further in view of McLaren (US 4407426) and Takano (US 20240092541).
Claim 16: Sven discloses an assembly comprising: a container 1 (receptacle) having an upper end and a bottom flange 3 (bottom side); and a lid 5 (cap) for closing the container 1 (receptacle); said lid 5 (cap) having a deck, which in use covers an end of said container 1 (receptacle), and furthermore having a lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) having an inner side to attach the snap cap to the upper end of the container 1 (receptacle), the deck having a peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone) a cylindrical portion 7 (elevated circular zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral outer groove wall 13 (peripheral rim) is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral outer groove wall 13 (peripheral rim) is elevated with respect to the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone), and wherein the cylindrical portion 7 (elevated circular zone) has an outer diameter which is adapted to mate with the bottom flange 3 (bottom side) of a further one of such a container 1 (receptacle) thereby facilitating stacking of such capped containers 1 (receptacles) (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 below).
Sven does not disclose the receptacle having an upper end ridge near an upper end of the receptacle, the cap being a snap cap, the inner side of the circumferential skirt having a snap bead formed to attach the snap cap to the upper end ridge of the receptacle, or the peripheral rim flaring radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt.
McLaren teaches an assembly having a carton 12 having a rim 18 (upper end ridge) near an upper end of the carton 12 and a lid 10 having an annular skirt 16 with an inner side having an annular shoulder 32 (snap bead) formed to attach the lid 10 to the rim 18 (upper end ridge) of the carton 12 (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper end of the container 1 (receptacle) to have a rim 18 (upper end ridge) and the inner side of the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) to have an annular shoulder 32 (snap bead), as taught by McLaren, in order to more positively and securely restrain the lid 5 (snap cap) and container 1 (receptacle) together.
Takano teaches a lid 1 having a cover wall 2 and a lower wall 6 extending from the cover wall 2, wherein at an outer periphery of the cover wall 2 a standing part 4 and upper wall 5 are formed which protrude from the cover wall 2 and have a free end, wherein the standing part 4 and upper wall 5 flare radially outward with respect to the lower wall 6 and have a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peripheral outer groove wall 13 (peripheral rim) to flare radially outward with respect to the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt), as taught by Takano, in order to better guide the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) into proper alignment with the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone) upon stacking of lids 5 (snap caps).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 2-5 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 4 May 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 6-8 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 4 May 2026.
The claim objections in paragraph 9 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 4 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 10-22 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 4 May 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the effect sought by the Examiner, i.e., “to better guide the circumferential skirt of Elliot into proper alignment with the peripherally continuous groove 22 upon stacking of lids” is not a teaching that can be derived from Takano because Takano mentions in paragraphs [0051] and [0083] that the lid 1 has a good stickability because the side wall 3 is tapered, and by stacking a plurality of the lid 1 as shown in FIG. 4, it becomes possible to store and transport them using a small space, allowing to reduce the costs for storage and transportation, such that according to Takano the tapering shape provides a good stickability of the lids which saves space, the Examiner replies that “[T]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law”. MPEP 2144 I.
In response to applicant’s argument that Elliot teaches away from partially receiving a lid in a lid underneath it in the stack because that causes problems in automated handling and feeding operations, while citing C. 1 L. 18-69, the Examiner replies that nothing the disclosure of Elliot criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution as is required for a teaching away. Elliot provides factual evidence that a lid is partially received in a lid underneath it in the stack (see fig. III which shows a lida partially received in a lid 10b underneath it in the stack).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is an interlocking projection 21 at a lower end of the sidewall 16 fitted within a groove 22 at the circumference of the deck of the lid, the Examiner replies that 21 is directed to the base and that Elliot discloses an interlocking projection 20 fitted within a groove 22 (see fig. II and III).
In response to applicant’s argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art using Elliot as a starting point will obviously not consider a prior art document which teaches exactly what Elliot wants to avoid and hence a person having ordinary skill in the art will not consider Takano in the first place, the Examiner responds that Elliot finds issue with inwardly extending peripheral wall portions having a slope opposite to the general outward flare of the sides so as to function as a shelf for supporting an adjacently stacked lid and troublesome reversely angled nesting shelf. Neither of these criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution as is required for a teaching away. Modifying the peripheral rim to flare radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt and have a conical radially inward facing surface does not result in a reversely angled nesting shelf or shelf in the form of an inwardly extending peripheral wall portion having a slope opposite to the general outward flare of the sides. In the combination the lower surface of the groove 22 remains flat and provides the shelf for supporting an adjacently stacked lid.
In response to applicant’s argument that an additional aim of the solution of Elliot is to limit the extent of radial movement of the side wall 16 and if limiting a radial movement is explicitly mentioned in Elliot it is not obvious to make the edge of the groove flaring outwardly because intuitively that is counterproductive, the Examiner responds that modifying the peripheral rim to flare outward does not change the location of the base of the peripheral rim, such that the peripheral rim still limits the extent of radial movement of the sidewall 16.
In response to applicant’s argument that the technical effect mentioned in Takano with regard to the tapering shape of the sidewall 3, i.e., store and transport them using a small space, is not relevant to a person having ordinary skill in the art using the groove 22 and projection 20 of Elliot as a starting point, thus for that space saving effect a person having ordinary skill in the art will not consider the tapering shape so it is not obvious to attempt to modify the lid of Elliot by making the edge of the groove 22 flaring outwardly, the Examiner replies the this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not rely on the motivation of space saving effect. Examiner notes that “[T]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law”. MPEP 2144 I.
In response to applicant’s argument that as applicant has argued in the above, the cap according to claim 1 is patentably distinct over the cited art and therefore an assembly including this cap is also patentably distinct, hence the assembly of amended claim 16 is patentably distinct over the prior art, the Examiner responds that the rejections of claims 1 and 16 relied upon different primary references, Elliot for claim 1 and Sven (US 3391850) for claim 16. Applicant’s arguments directed to Elliot cannot be relied upon to persuasively argue against a different reference, Sven.
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights