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
Claims 42-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 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.
Claim 40 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. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “container” is positively claimed as part of the invention or not. For example, in line 1 of claim 28, “a container” is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention. The claim recites “A closure for an infant formula package, the package comprising a container” in which the package and therefore the container are not part of the claimed invention, wherein the claim only requires a closure with the capability to be used in a package, and wherein the package includes a container, but none of the package and the container are positively recited as part of the invention
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.
Claims 28-31, 34, 35 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2012/0285845) in view of Cho (US 2024/0009952).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 28
Jackson discloses a closure capable to be used with an infant formula package, wherein the package could include a container having an access opening to an interior space capable of receiving the infant formula, whereby the closure could be arranged for selectively closing the access opening, the closure comprising a lid (4) with a scoop holder (3) located at an underside of the lid to retain a scoop, wherein the scoop holder comprises an apertured plate (defined by flat portion of the holder which the scoop is attached) having an apertured portion with an aperture therethrough to receive at least part of the scoop (see figure 6). Jackson appears to disclose the scoop holder and the lid formed integrally one from the other (see figures 1 and 6), wherein the lid is used to close a condiment/food container (see abstract and [0045]). Jackson is silent disclosing the material used for the lid and the scoop holder. However, Cho discloses lids made from paper material are known for eco-friendly manufacturing process (see abstract and [0001]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the lid of Jackson, including the scoop holder, made from paper material as taught by Cho for eco-friendly and/or biodegradability purposes of the lid.
Claim 29
Jackson further discloses the apertured plate comprises an attachment portion (defined by upper surface of opening which portion 2 of the scoop is inserted and attached) attached to the lid and surrounding the apertured portion (see figure above).
Claim 30
Jackson further discloses the scoop holder is substantially co-extensive with the lid (see figure above).
Claim 31
Jackson further discloses the aperture is shaped to match at least part of an outline of the scoop, to prevent motion of the scoop within a plane parallel to the apertured plate (see figure above).
Claim 34
Jackson further discloses the apertured portion protrudes downwards, out of a plane of the attachment portion whereby the aperture is spaced from the underside of the lid. The scoop holder comprises sides which makes the apertured portion to protrude from the underside of the lid, wherein the side of the scoop holder makes the apertured portion to be out of a plane of the attachment portion (see figure above).
Claim 35
Jackson further discloses the scoop holder comprises a transition portion between the attachment portion and the apertured portion and the aperture extends at least partially into the transition portion (see figure above).
Claim 41
Cho discloses the paper is the main material used for the lids (see abstract). Jackson as modified by Cho, most of the material, i.e. 85 weight percentage, used for the lid will be paper. From the argument Jackson and Cho does not disclose the required weight percentage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lid of Jackson and Cho with the required paper weight percentage, i.e. at least 85 wt.%, for faster biodegradability of the lid.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2012/0285845) and Cho (US 2024/0009952) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Schuler (US 2020/0369439).
Jackson discloses the lid separate from a container (6) and joined to each other by a structure which appears to be complementary threads (7) (see figure 1). Jackson does not disclose the lid and the container connected by a hinge, as required. However, Schuler discloses a container (1) formed from paper/molded pulp material (see [0017]) comprising a base (12) and a lid (10) which could be joined to each other by a hinge (120) integral to the base and the lid (see figure 1) or could be formed separate one from the other (see figures 12 and 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the container and the lid joined by a hinge as taught by Schuler since threads and hinges are equivalent structural features of attaching parts of a package.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 33 and 36-39 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
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
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.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights