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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
As to claim 16, applicant recites “a hygroscopic beverage powder” is lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 already recites “a hygroscopic beverage powder”, which is not clear whether applicant is claiming the same hygroscopic beverage powder or different hygroscopic beverage powder. For the purpose of examination, examiner presumes that applicant is claiming the “same” hygroscopic beverage powder, and the limitation should change to –the hygroscopic beverage powder—for proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perry et al (2008/0156805).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Perry discloses a container (Figure 16) comprising: a container body (body 210) having an interior bounded by a bottom wall (214), a neck (upper end 282 and upper portion 216d, 218d, 220d, 222d as shown in Figure 8 are considered as the neck) opposite the bottom wall, and sidewalls (216, 218, 220, 222) extending between the bottom wall and the neck; wherein the neck has an outwardly extending protuberance (as shown in Figure 23, the protuberance is form at the upper end 282 as shown above) for cooperating with an inwardly extending protuberance (312) of a lid (the lid comprises the collar and the upper lid D) and an inwardly-cantilevered sealing flange presenting a non-circular sealing surface and having a first end connected to an upwardly extending step to form a hinged intersection therewith (as annotated above), positioned on an opposite side of the protuberance relative to the bottom wall, and a second end that defines an access opening to the interior of the container, the sealing flange extending at an inclined angle away from the bottom wall such that, during sealing of a sealing barrier (420) to the sealing flange (Figure 23), the sealing flange can pivot about the hinged intersection with the step and toward the bottom wall (a bend between the step and the second portion is capable of pivoting at the hinged intersection).
As to claims 2-4, Perry further discloses the access opening is non- circular and generally rectangular, the sealing flange has four generally linear segments and four corner regions (as shown in Figure 22).
As to claim 6, Perry further discloses the sidewalls of the container define a generally rectangular perimeter of the container body (as shown in Figure 16, the sidewalls of the container are generally rectangular perimeter).
As to claims 11, Perry further discloses a sealing barrier (400) sealed to the non-circular sealing surface of the sealing flange to seal the interior of the container body.
As to claim 12, Perry further discloses a lid (the collar 310 in combination with openable lid D) removably attached relative to the neck of the container and covering the access opening (Figure 16).
As to claim 13, Perry further discloses the lid (the collar 310 in combination with openable lid D) has a top wall and a depending skirt (skirt being the collar), the skirt having an inwardly extending protuberance (310) configured to cooperate with the outwardly extending protuberance of the neck of the container body to secure the lid to the neck of the container body.
As to claims 14-16, Perry further discloses a method of positioning the sealing barrier (28,400) position against the sealing surface of the sealing flange (284) of the container body, applying heat and pressure [0134] to the sealing barrier to inwardly pivot the sealing flange about the hinged intersection with the step and to seal the sealing barrier to the sealing surface of the sealing flange, filling the container with a hygroscopic beverage powder (milk powder) prior to the steps of positioning the sealing barrier and after the steps of filling the container with a hygroscopic beverage powder, positioning the sealing barrier (28 ,400) and seal the sealing barrier, removably attaching a lid relative to the neck of the container and covering the access opening.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry et al (2008/0156805) in view of Hall et al (8,746,453)
As to claims 7-8 and 10, Perry further discloses the side walls of the container having a recessed gripping portion, but does not disclose the sidewalls of the container body define a hollow handle spaced by a through-opening from a remainder of the container body and the container body is form by blow molding. Nevertheless, Hall discloses a container (12), the container comprises a sidewall of the container define a hollow handle (88) spaced by a through-opening (84a) from a remainder of the container body (Figure 1). Hall further discloses the container is made from blow molded (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Perry with though-opening handle and the container made from blow molding as taught by Hall in order to provide a greater gripping of the container for carrying and blow mold is a well known container method for quick and cheap manufacturing process.
As to claim 17, Perry disclose a container having a generally polygonal sealing surface (284 with upper surface) with a plurality of segments extending between adjacent corner regions with a sealing barrier (28, 400) using a planar sealing head surface (Figure 8), wherein the generally polygonal sealing surface is positioned on an opposite side of a lid locking protuberance (as shown in Figure 8, the protuberance is form at the upper end 282 as shown above) for cooperating with an inwardly extending protuberance (312) as compared to a bottom wall (214) of the container, the generally polygonal sealing surface extending at an inwardly and upwardly angle relative to the planar sealing head surface and wherein the generally polygonal sealing surface is closer to the planar sealing head surface prior to sealing at regions of the plurality of segments between the corner regions as compared to at the corner regions, the generally polygonal sealing surface deflecting toward the bottom wall of the container during sealing of the sealing barrier using the planar sealing head surface (a bend between the step and the second portion is capable of pivoting at the hinged intersection). However, Perry does not disclose the container body is form by blow molding. Nevertheless, Hall discloses a container (12), the container is made from blow molded (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Perry with the container made from blow molding as taught by Hall in order to provide well known container method for quick and cheap manufacturing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,505,522 discloses similar structure as claimed, but does not disclose a diagonally opposite pair of the corner regions of the sealing flange having pinch line that extends at 50% or less of a width of the sealing flange at each of the pair of corner regions and the flange having a central portion with an increase height relative to the bottom wall as compared to the corner regions.
US 20110006066 discloses a locking device for reclosable package, but does not disclose a diagonally opposite pair of the corner regions of the sealing flange having pinch line that extends at 50% or less of a width of the sealing flange at each of the pair of corner regions and the flange having a central portion with an increase height relative to the bottom wall as compared to the corner regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights