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 .
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 1-14, 17-18, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burney (US 8,181,819) in view of Karlan (US 3,473,685) further in view of Moore (US 4,566,603)
Regarding claim 1, Burney (figs. 6-12) discloses a lock-on closure 101(for an open-top container having a sidewall 102 ending in an outwardly protruding top rim having a substantially flat top surface) comprising:
a molded plastic body having a center deck and an integral annular peripheral channel portion with radially spaced apart inner and outer annular walls defining the channel wherein the channel is an inverted annular U- shaped channel having interior inner, top and outer surfaces and being configured for lockingly receiving said top rim and a portion of said sidewall in a plug fit;
said outer annular wall 132 having an annular ledge 134 configured to lockingly abut an under surface of said outwardly protruding top rim when the rim is fully inserted into said annular channel, wherein said outer annular wall 132 defines an upper inwardly facing surface defined between the annular ledge 134 and the interior top surface, wherein a majority of said upper inwardly facing surface of said outer annular wall is capable of contacting an outwardly facing surface of said outwardly protruding top rim when said container rim is fully inserted into said annular channel;
said interior inner surface having a primary seal 136 configured for cooperation with an interior wall of said container
and a single, flexible sealing wiper appendage 111 integrally depending from the interior top wall of said inverted U-shaped channel and angled downwardly and inwardly toward said interior inner surface and said primary seal 136 (col. 4, lines 54-59) configured to lie sealingly against an inner sidewall surface of said container to form said primary seal 136; wherein the sealing wiper appendage 111 is deformable, wherein, in response to the annular sidewall of the container being outside of the channel, the sealing wiper appendage is in a first position in which the sealing wiper appendage 111 extends downwardly from the top annular wall and is angled inwardly toward the inner annular wall and the primary seal such that a terminal end of the sealing wiper appendage is freely suspended within the channel, and wherein, in response to the annular sidewall of the container being fully inserted into the channel, the sealing wiper appendage 111 is in a second position in which the sealing wiper appendage contacts a top outer surface of the top rim to form a secondary seal with the container in which said secondary seal reacts to pressure within the container to increase in sealing effect,
wherein the interior top wall includes a generally flat, planar inner surface, the inner surface of the interior top wall being entirely spaced apart from the substantially flat top surface of the outwardly protruding top rim of the container when the rim is fully inserted into said annular channel.
Burney fails to disclose:
the primary seal 136 provided by a plurality of annular sealing ridges formed on a substantially vertical portion of said inner surface; and
in the second position, the terminal end contacting the vertical portion of said inner annular wall.
However, Karlan teaches a double bead sealing system 18 (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the primary seal 136 of Burney, two sealing beads, to provide a superior seal. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further, Moore teaches a sealing wiper appendage (142, 242) having a second position, where the terminal end contacts a vertical portion (141, 241) of an inner annular wall (figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the terminal end of the sealing wiper appendage 111 of the modified Burney, contact a vertical portion of the inner annual wall, to provide better sealing.
Regarding claim 2, Burney further discloses the entirety of the closure is molded from high density polyethylene (HDPE) (col 1, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 3, Burney further discloses the sealing wiper appendage has a root and a length and wherein the ratio of the length dimension to the root dimension is approximately 4.25:1 (figs. 6-8). Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 4, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 5, Burney further discloses the wiper appendage angles inwardly (or outwardly) toward said inner wall by 12 degrees i.e., about 20 degrees (col. 7, lines 11-12). Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 6, Burney (figs. 6-12) discloses a lock-on closure (for an open-top container having a sidewall ending in an outwardly protruding top rim having a substantially flat top surface) comprising:
a molded plastic body having a center deck and an integral annular peripheral channel portion with radially spaced apart inner and outer annular walls defining an inverted annular U- shaped channel having interior inner, top and outer surfaces and being configured for lockingly receiving said top rim and a portion of said sidewall in a plug fit;
said outer wall having an annular ledge 134 configured to lockingly abut an under surface of said outwardly protruding top rim when the rim is fully inserted into said annular channel, a top surface of the annular ledge 134 defining a ledge plane;
said interior inner surface having a primary seal 136 configured for cooperation with the interior wall of said container; and
a single, flexible sealing wiper appendage 111 integrally depending from the interior top surface of said inverted U-shaped channel and angled downwardly and inwardly toward said interior inner surface and said primary seal so as to deformingly contact the top surface of said outwardly protruding top rim when said rim is fully inserted into said channel to form a secondary seal with said container which secondary seal reacts to pressure within the container to increase in sealing effect (col. 4, lines 54-59),
wherein the sealing wiper appendage includes a radially outer surface having a generally flat shape and a radially inner surface having a generally flat shape opposite the outer surface, each of the radially outer and inner surface depending downwardly towards the tip of the sealing wiper appendage, wherein, when the rim is not inserted into said annular channel.
Burney fails to disclose:
the primary seal 136 being a plurality of annular sealing ridges each including a tip and formed on said inner surface configured to lie sealingly against an inner sidewall surface of said container to form said primary seal, the tip of a lowermost annular sealing ridge of the plurality of annular sealing ridges being located below the ledge plane;
wherein the plurality of annular sealing ridges includes exactly two ridges, the exactly two ridges including a first ridge and a second ridge, wherein the ledge plane extends between the tips of the two ridges and intersects with the lowermost annular sealing ridge, wherein each of the first ridge and the second ridge extends circumferentially around the inner annular wall and is unending, wherein the tip of the first ridge defines a first plane that extends through the tip around an entirety of an annular extent of the tip, the tip of the first ridge being parallel with the ledge plane, wherein the tip of the second ridge defines a second plane that extends through the tip around an entirety of an annular extent of the tip, the tip of the second ridge being parallel with the ledge plane, wherein the first plane and the second plane are parallel and spaced apart from each other, and
when the rim is fully inserted into said annular channel, the radially outer and inner surfaces retain the generally flat shape.
However, Karlan teaches a double bead sealing system 18 as claimed (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the primary seal 136 of Burney, two sealing beads, as taught by Karlan to provide a superior seal. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further, Moore teaches a sealing wiper appendage (142, 242) having a second position, where the terminal end contacts a vertical portion (141, 241) of an inner annular wall when a rim of a container is fully inserted into said annular channel, the radially outer and inner surfaces retain the generally flat shape (figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the terminal end of the sealing wiper appendage 111 of the modified Burney, contact a vertical portion of the inner annual wall, wherein when a rim of a container is fully inserted into said annular channel, the radially outer and inner surfaces retain the generally flat shape, as taught by Moore to provide better sealing.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Burney further discloses the tip of an uppermost annular sealing ridge 136 of the plurality of annular sealing ridges being located below a bottom end of the single, flexible sealing wiper appendage 111 in response to the single, flexible sealing wiper appendage being in a non-deformed position (fig. 11 of Burney).
Regarding claim 8, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Burney further discloses the wiper appendage angles inwardly (or outwardly) toward said inner wall by 12 degrees i.e., about 20 degrees (col. 7, lines 11-12). Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified Burney further discloses the inner annular wall defining a downwardly facing bottom surface at a lowermost point of the inner annular wall (fig. 2 of Karlan). However, the modified Burney fails to disclose: a distance between the downwardly facing bottom surface and the tip of the lowermost annular sealing ridge of the plurality of annular sealing ridges is 0.566 inches, and a distance between the tip of each annular sealing ridge of the plurality of annular sealing ridges and the inner surface is 0.24 inches.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Burney further discloses the top interior surface including a flat top surface, and wherein the top surface of the annular ledge includes a flat surface that is parallel with the flat top surface (fig. 11).
Regarding claims 13-14, the modified Burney further discloses a top surface of the annular ledge defines a ledge plane, wherein the plurality of annular sealing ridges include exactly two ridges each having a tip but the modified Burney fails to disclose the ledge plane extending between two tips of two ridges of the plurality of annular sealing ridges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have extended the ledge plane of the modified Burney, between two tips of two ridges of the plurality of annular sealing ridges since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Burney further discloses the single, flexible sealing wiper appendage (11, 111) includes a root and a tip, and wherein the root is coupled to the interior top surface and is entirely spaced apart from the interior inner surface of the inner annular wall (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Burney further discloses the interior top surface includes a generally flat, planar inner surface, and wherein the top surface of the annular ledge includes a flat surface that is generally parallel with the generally flat, planar inner surface of the interior top wall (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Burney further discloses the top surface of the annular ledge includes a flat surface that is generally parallel with the generally flat, planar inner surface of the interior top surface (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Burney further discloses the plurality of annular sealing ridges includes exactly two ridges, the exactly two ridges including a first ridge and a second ridge, wherein each of the first ridge and the second ridge extends circumferentially around the inner annular wall and is unending, wherein the tip of the first ridge defines a first plane that is parallel with the ledge plane, wherein the tip of the second ridge defines a second plane that is parallel with the ledge plane, and wherein the first plane and the second plane are parallel and spaced apart from each other (fig. 2 of Karlan).
Regarding claims 23-24, the modified Burney discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose: the wiper appendage angles inwardly toward said inner wall by an angle of about 22.5 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the angle between the wiper appendage and the inner wall about 22.5 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Burney further discloses the center deck defines a deck plane that is lower than the ledge plane (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Burney fails to disclose the sealing wiper appendage including a 5° taper from a root end to a distal end of the sealing wiper appendage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have included a 5° taper from a root end to a distal end of the sealing wiper appendage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 27, Burney (figs. 6-12 and col. 4, lines 54-59) discloses a container package comprising:
a container including an annular sidewall having an annular container wall, a top rim extending from the annular container wall, and a downwardly extending container wall extending downwardly away from the top rim; and
a lock-on closure configured to couple to the container in a fixed position relative to the container, the lock-on closure including:
a body including a channel portion including an inner annular wall, an outer annular wall, and a top annular wall extending between and interconnecting the inner annular wall and the outer annular wall so as to form a channel, wherein the inner annular wall includes a primary seal for cooperation with the annular container wall, the primary seal including a sealing ridge 136 to lie sealingly against the inner annular container wall to form the primary seal, and
a single, flexible sealing wiper appendage 111 extending away from the top annular wall of the channel portion, wherein, in response to the annular sidewall of the container being fully inserted into the channel, the sealing wiper appendage 111 contacts a top outer surface of the top rim to form a secondary seal with the container, and wherein, in response to the annular sidewall of the container being fully inserted into the channel, the lock-on closure is entirely spaced apart from an entirety of the top outer surface of the top rim.
Burney fails to disclose:
the primary seal 136 including a plurality of annular sealing ridges; and
in response to the annular sidewall of the container being fully inserted into the channel, a terminal end of the sealing wiper appendage contacts the inner annular wall.
However, Karlan teaches a double bead sealing system 18 as claimed (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the primary seal 136 of Burney, two sealing beads, as taught by Karlan to provide a superior seal. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further, Moore teaches a sealing wiper appendage (142, 242) having a second position, where the terminal end contacts a vertical portion (141, 241) of an inner annular wall when a rim of a container is fully inserted into said annular channel (figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the terminal end of the sealing wiper appendage 111 of the modified Burney, contact a vertical portion of the inner annual wall, wherein when a rim of a container is fully inserted into said annular channel, as taught by Moore to provide better sealing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burney (US 8,181,819) in view of Karlan (US 3,473,685) further in view of Moore (US 4,566,603) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Baltz (US 8,863,982).
Regarding claim 19, Burney further discloses the interior top surface being entirely spaced apart from the substantially flat top surface of the outwardly protruding top rim of the container when the rim is fully inserted into said annular channel (fig. 7).
The modified Burney fails to disclose the interior top surface of the container being generally flat.
However, Baltz teaches a container having a generally flat interior top surface (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the interior top surface of the container, generally flat, as taught by Baltz, to provide more sealing surface. Also, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the lid skirt 132 of Burney is not configured to contact an outwardly facing surface of a top rim of a container, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The inner surface of the lid skirt 132 of Burney is capable of performing the intended use (i.e., contacting an outwardly facing surface of a top rim or an appropriately shaped container). The claims are directed to a closure and not a combination of a container and closure.
Applicant further argues that modifying the container lip 109 would very likely over-flex and permanently deform the rib 111. However, it is noted that the rejection does not modify the lip of the container. The rejection only states that the closure of the modified Burney is capable of contacting an outwardly facing surface of an appropriately shaped container.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation (i.e., to provide better sealing) is found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues regarding claim 6, that the ledge 134 of Burney can’t be parallel with the ridge of Burney because the ledge plane of Burney is sloped. However, contrary to applicant’s argument, fig. 7 of Burney clearly shows a horizontal ledge plane that is not sloped.
Applicant further argues that Burney teaches away from the ribs 111 being able to maintain a flat shape through the deflection of the rib 111, because Burney teaches a “significantly flexible” rib 111. However, it is noted that applicant also teaches a flexible rib. The fact that the rib is flexible does not prevent it from maintaining a generally flat shape as taught by Moore.
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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735