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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), filed 25 August 2025, which have been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed, and dated copy of each PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to the Office action.
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 1-17 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 1 recites the limitations "the peripheral edge" (line 6), “the base and skirt” (lines 6-7), “the skirt” (line 9), “the fold” (line 9), and “the folded skirt” (line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the skirt” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the circumferential beach” (line 2) and “the skirt” (lines 2-3 and 3-4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an inner protrusion” in line 1. It is not clear whether this limitation refers to “an inner protrusion” as set forth in claim 1, on which claim 9 depends.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the base” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the skirt” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the skirt” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “comprising extending” in line 1, the meaning of which is unclear. It appears that “comprising” should be deleted.
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-17 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartinger Pena et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0112004) in view of Tanaka et al. (2021/0237387) and Song (US Patent Publ. No. 2014/0224822).
With respect to claim 1, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose a method of making a paper-based lid (a molding process of forming a lid from paper material, fig. 1, [0021]), the method comprising: placing a blank onto a deep draw device (a circular shaped paper material is formed into inner section 2, intermediate section 3, outer section 4, and lateral wall 5 by a top male mold and a bottom female mold, fig. 2, [0021]), wherein the blank comprises a central portion and a peripheral region (central portion of circular paper material forms inner section 2, peripheral region of circular paper material forms intermediate section 3, fig. 2); deep drawing the blank with the deep draw device (the circular shaped paper material is formed by compressing in top male mold and bottom female mold, [0021]); forming a circumferential bead about the perimeter of the peripheral edge (outer section 4 at the perimeter of the intermediate section 3, fig. 2) between the base (the intermediate section 3) and skirt (lateral wall 5); folding a bottom portion of the skirt inward (bottom edge 10 of the lateral wall 5 engaged with a bottom curling mold and curls the lateral wall 5 inward, fig. 7, [0021]) wherein the fold (bottom edge 10) forms an upwardly extending curl connecting an outer sidewall (upper section 6, angled section 7, lower section 8) and an inner sidewall (inner wall 9) of the skirt (lateral wall 5); knurling the folded skirt (introducing a knurling wheel to the inner wall 9, fig. 7, [0021]); and forming an inner protrusion within the inner sidewall of the folded skirt (rotation of the knurling wheel and positioning of the male mold compress an inner curled section of the lateral wall 5 to an outer flat section of the lateral wall 5, delineating the radial rib 16, fig. 7, [0021]).
Hartinger Pena et al. fail to disclose applying a force to the peripheral region of the blank with a blank holder.
Tanaka et al. disclose, in a similar system, a method of forming a paper lid including applying a force to the peripheral region of a blank with a blank holder and deep drawing the blank with a deep draw device (blank holder 120, punch and die 130, 110, fig. 4, [0058]-[0060]).
It 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 to modify the Hartinger Pena et al. method to include applying a force to the peripheral region of the blank with a blank holder as suggested by Tanaka et al., to avoid wrinkles in the formed lid.
Hartinger Pena et al. fail to disclose the circumferential bead is radially extendable between an inward position and an outward position.
Song discloses a paper lid include a circumferential bead that is radially extendable between an inward position and an outward position (groove 121, groove 122, are flexible and may spread, figs. 3A, 4, [0042]).
It 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 to modify the Hartinger Pena et al. method to include a circumferential bead that is radially extendable between an inward position and an outward position, as suggested by Song, to allow deformation for attaching the lid to a container and for stacking the lids.
With respect to claim 2, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose forming the circumferential bead comprises: compressing the deep drawn blank into a mold (lid is manufactured by a compressing and molding process including a male mold and a female mold, [0021]).
With respect to claim 3, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose forming the inner protrusion comprises: compressing the outer sidewall and the inner sidewall of the skirt (lateral wall is formed by male mold and female mold, [0021]), wherein a first pressure is applied above the inner protrusion (preheated air is introduced after removal of knurling wheel, [0021]), a second pressure is applied below the inner protrusion (bottom stacking mold forms sections 7, 8, [0021]), and a third pressure is applied to the inner protrusion (bottom knurling wheel and top male mold compress an inner curled section of the lateral wall to an outer flat section thus delineating the radial rib 16, [0021]).
With respect to claim 4, Hartinger Pena et al. fail to disclose the first pressure and the second pressure are greater than the third pressure.
It 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 to modify the Hartinger Pena et al. method to include the first pressure and the second pressure are greater than the third pressure, as a matter of optimization through routine experimentation, in the absence of any unexpected results of the relative amounts of pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the particular pressure amounts, to optimize the several compression and forming steps. MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
With respect to claim 5, Hartinger Pena et al. fail to disclose the first pressure is greater than the second pressure.
It 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 to modify the Hartinger Pena et al. method to include the first pressure is greater than the second pressure, as a matter of optimization through routine experimentation, in the absence of any unexpected results of the relative amounts of pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the particular pressure amounts, to optimize the several compression and forming steps. MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
With respect to claim 6, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the blank is made from at least 95% paper material (“in order to eliminate plastic pollution”, the lid is “completely made from paper material”, [0014]).
With respect to claim 7, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the outer sidewall is linear between the upwardly extending curl and the circumferential bead (each of sections 6, 7, 8 are linear between the curl 10 and the outer section 4, figs. 2, 7).
With respect to claim 8, Hartinger Pena et al., as modified by Song, include the circumferential bead is configured to extend into the outward position upon application of the lid to a container (groove 121, groove 122, are flexible and may spread, curling part 210 of container 200 is fitted into groove 121 of lid, figs. 3A, 4, 8, [0033], [0040], [0042]).
With respect to claim 9, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the inner sidewall comprises an inner protrusion extending radially inward (radial rib 16, fig. 7, [0021]).
Hartinger Pena et al., as modified by Song, disclose that when the circumferential bead is in the inward position, the skirt defines a first diameter, and when the circumferential bead is in the outward position, the skirt defines a second diameter (skirt extends from the groove 121, 122, (groove 121, groove 122, are flexible and may spread, curling part 210 of container 200 is fitted into groove 121 of lid, figs. 3A, 4, 8, [0033], [0040], [0042]).
With respect to claim 10, Hartinger Pena et al., as modified by Song, disclose the forming a circumferential bead step forms a circumferential bead which is biased to the inward position (resting/biased position as depicted in fig. 7).
With respect to claim 11, Hartinger Pena et al., as modified by Song, disclose the circumferential bead defines a height above the base (annotated fig. 7), and wherein when the circumferential bead is radially extended to the outward position the height of the circumferential bead decreases (when grooves 121, 122 are extended groove flattens and decreases height, annotated fig. 7). The claim does not define the particular direction of height with respect to the elements of the lid. Since the lid may be held in any position, the direction as shown in annotated fig. 7 is considered to be the height.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Hartinger Pena et al., as modified by Song, disclose the circumferential bead defines a cross-section of a half-cylinder in the inward position (grooves 121, 122 are depicted as half-cylinders in fig. 3A).
With respect to claim 13, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the inner protrusion is continuous about the inner sidewall of the skirt (radial rib 16, figs. 3, 4).
With respect to claim 14, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the skirt defines an upper portion extending between the circumferential bead and the inner protrusion (substantially the section 6, fig. 7), and a lower portion extending between the upwardly extending curl and the inner protrusion (sections 7, 8, 9), wherein the upper portion and the lower portion are configured with different flexion (section 6 is constrained from movement and thus has a different flexion from sections 7, 8, 9 when the lid is secured to a container, fig. 8).
With respect to claim 15, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the upper portion exhibits a larger outward flex than the lower portion.
Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the lid including an upper portion and a lower portion. Thus, the upper portion is fully capable of exhibiting a larger outward flex than the lower portion.
The intended use recitation language (some of which has been italicized supra) carries no weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. See MPEP 2114 which states: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
With respect to claim 16, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the lower portion is configured for minimal outward flex (sections 7, 8, 9 are paper and exhibit flex). The term “minimal” is relative and the claim does not define any particular degree of flex; the sections 7, 8, 9 are considered to exhibit “minimal” outward flex.
With respect to claim 17, Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the flex between the upper portion and the lower portion is linear.
Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the lid including an upper portion and a lower portion. Thus, the flex between the upper portion and the lower portion is fully capable of being linear.
The intended use recitation language (some of which has been italicized supra) carries no weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Hartinger Pena et al. disclose the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. See MPEP 2114 which states: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2024/0009952) disclose a paper lid including an extendable bead (fig. 7).
Huh et al. (KR 102397656) disclose a method of making a paper lid including an extendable bead (fig. 1).
Gres et al. (WO 2020/127147) disclose a method of forming a paper article including pleat pressing.
Hyder et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2010/0243722) disclose a method of forming a paper lid.
Marx et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,721,499) disclose forming a paper article including pleat pressing.
Moessnang (US Patent Publ. No. 2022/0339900) disclose forming a paper article comprising at least 95 percent paper.
Gonzalez (WO 2019/141887) disclose a fiber article having different areas of flexion.
Larsson et al. (WO 2017/160218) disclose a fiber article comprising 90-98 percent paper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights