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 3 March 2026. These drawings are unacceptable. Figure 2 is not entered because it contains new matter due to the annular seal 18 being shown differently that originally depicted and not being hatched. No correction is required as the original figure 2 is acceptable.
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, 4, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chawla (US 20110162151) further in view of Davis (US 20120298543) and Bono (GB 2499015).
Claim 1: Chawla discloses a closure cap 10 for a detergent bottle, the closure cap 10 comprising: a vessel wall 60 (cap wall) having a plurality of nubs 154 (surface elements) that are spaced apart from one another at least partially along a circumference of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall), each nub 154 (surface element) of the plurality of nubs 154 (surface elements) being circular and extending outward from a datum plane of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall), each nub 154 (surface element) having a contour starting from a circumferential edge at the datum plane of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) and extending to a central region of the nub 154 (surface element), each nub 154 (surface element) having a diameter in the datum plane, and each nub 154 (surface element) having a height (largest height) within the central region; and a pouring ledge 210 (end wall) extending from the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) and defining a top surface of the closure cap 10, wherein the height (largest height) is less than half the diameter, and the central region is rounded and has a radius of curvature (see P. 0037, fig. 7 and annotated fig. 3 below).
Chawla does not disclose the contour having a radius of curvature, the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter, the largest height being less than one tenth of the diameter, or the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour.
Davis teaches a pretreatment cup 10 having at least one spreading region 80 having a plurality of spreading protrusions 90 whose largest height can be 0.2 mm - 4 mm and when the spreading protrusion 90 is in the form of a dot can have a width (diameter) of the base of that respective spreading protrusion 90 of 9.2 mm - 5 mm, such that Davis discloses that when the largest height is 0.2 mm and the width (diameter) is 2.0001 mm - 5 mm the largest height of the respective spreading protrusion 9 being is less than one tenth of the width (diameter) of the base of that respective spreading protrusion 90 (see P. 0034, 0037 and fig. 3 & 6).
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 height (largest height) of each nub 154 (surface element) to be 0.2 mm and the diameter to be in the range of 2.00001 mm to 5 mm, as taught by Davis, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
Bono teaches a device 1 forming a dosing device for retaining / dosing a liquid detergent composition, wherein the device 1 has spreading ridges 7 spaced apart from one another, each having a contour starting from a circumferential edge at a datum plane of its associated wall and extending to a central region of the spreading ridge 7, wherein in order to form a smooth transition from the datum plane, the contour has a radius of curvature (see fig. 3 and annotated fig. 4 below).
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 closure cap 10 such that the contour f the nubs 154 (surface elements) had a radius of curvature in order to form a smooth transition from the datum planes, as taught by Bono, in order to reduce stress concentrations and improve molding by decreasing warpage, flow resistance and providing more uniform cooling.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the contour be greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements), since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter of the surface element
Additionally or in the alternative, 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 radius of curvature of the contour greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements) in order to reduce stress concentrations 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. Crawford (NPL U) provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Comers and figure 7.17).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the central region less than the radius of curvature of the contour, since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour.
Additionally or alternatively, when comparing the radius of curvature of the central region and the radius of curvature of the contour there are three identified, predictable solutions. A first being the radius of curvature of the central region being identical to the radius of curvature of the contour, a second being the radius of curvature of the central region being greater than the radius of curvature of the contour, and a third being the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour. Additionally or in the alternative to design choice, 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 radius of curvature of the central region be less than the radius of curvature of the contour, as it would have been obvious to try the third identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein each nub 154 (surface element) is integral with the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) and is made of the same material as the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) as it discloses that the first surface irregularities 150 can comprise a first material of polypropylene and another portion of the cap 10 next to the first material can comprise a second material of polypropylene (see P. 0032 and fig. 3 & 7).
Claim 12: The combination results in the diameter which is in of the range of 2.00001 mm to 5 mm and the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter, such that the range of radius of curvature at least partially overlaps the claimed range of between 1 mm and 10 mm.
Additionally or in the alternative, 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 radius of curvature of the contour between 1 mm and 10 mm in order to reduce stress concentrations 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. Crawford (NPL U) provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Comers and figure 7.17).
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed range of the radius of curvature.
Claim 13: The combination results in the diameter being between 2.00001 mm to 5 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 mm and 3 mm.
Claim 16: The combination does not disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the contour is between two and six times larger than the diameter.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the contour be between two and six times larger than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements), since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the contour being between two and six times larger than the diameter of the surface element
Additionally or in the alternative, 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 radius of curvature of the contour be between two and six times larger than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements) in order to reduce stress concentrations 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. Crawford (NPL U) provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Comers and figure 7.17).
Claim 18: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the central region has an inner diameter that is between 25% and 60% of the diameter of the surface element.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the inner diameter of the central region be between 25% and 60% of the diameter of the nub 154 (surface element), since applicant has not disclosed that the range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well and since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 19: The combination discloses wherein each nub 154 (surface element) defines an inflection point where the central region and the contour meet.
Claim 20: The combination discloses wherein the larges height is 0.2 mm which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 mm and 0.5 mm.
Claim 21: The combination discloses wherein a number of nubs 154 (surface elements) at one circumferential angle of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) is greater than another number of nubs 154 (surface elements) at another circumferential angle of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) as there are portions of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) which have no nubs 154 (surface elements) (see fig. 7).
Claim 22: The combination discloses wherein a circumferential angle having the most number of nubs 154 (surface elements) is offset by 180° relative to a circumferential angle having the fewest number of nubs 154 (surface elements) as no nubs 154 (surface elements) are located 180 degrees relative to the location of the nubs 154 (surface elements) (see fig. 7).
Claim 23: The combination discloses wherein the pouring ledge 210 (end wall) also has another plurality of nubs 154 (surface elements) (see fig. 7).
Claim 24: The combination discloses wherein the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) is a cylindrical lateral face (see fig. 7).
Claim 25: The combination discloses a container 110 & closure cap 10, together reading on the detergent bottle, comprising the closure cap 10 of claim 1 (see fig. 1 and P. 0021).
Claim 26: The combination does not disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the contour is greater than two times the diameter.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the contour be at least two times greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements), since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the contour being between at least two times greater than the diameter of the surface element
Additionally or in the alternative, 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 radius of curvature of the contour be at least two times greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements) in order to reduce stress concentrations 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. Crawford (NPL U) provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Comers and figure 7.17).
Claim 27: The combination discloses wherein the central region is convex (see fig. 3).
Claim 28: The combination results in the diameter being between 2.00001 mm to 5 mm which is close to the claimed range of between 1.7 mm and 1.9 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Claim 29: The combination discloses wherein the largest height is 0.2 mm which is close to the claimed range of less than 0.2 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Claim 30: The combination discloses wherein the largest height is 0.2 mm which is close to the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.16 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Claim 1: Under a second interpretation Chawla discloses a closure cap 10 for a detergent bottle, the closure cap 10 comprising: a vessel wall 60 (cap wall) having a plurality of nubs 154 (surface elements) that are spaced apart from one another at least partially along a circumference of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall), each nub 154 (surface element) of the plurality of nubs 154 (surface elements) being circular and extending outward from a datum plane of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall), each nub 154 (surface element) having a contour starting from a circumferential edge at the datum plane of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) and extending to a central region of the nub 154 (surface element), each nub 154 (surface element) having a diameter in the datum plane, and each nub 154 (surface element) having a height (largest height) within the central region; and a pouring base 20 (end wall) extending from the vessel wall 60 (cap wall) and defining a top surface of the closure cap 10, wherein the height (largest height) is less than half the diameter, and the central region is rounded and has a radius of curvature (see P. 0037, fig. 7 and annotated fig. 3 below).
Chawla does not disclose the contour having a radius of curvature, the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter, the largest height being less than one tenth of the diameter, or the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour.
Davis teaches a pretreatment cup 10 having at least one spreading region 80 having a plurality of spreading protrusions 90 whose largest height can be 0.2 mm - 4 mm and when the spreading protrusion 90 is in the form of a dot can have a width (diameter) of the base of that respective spreading protrusion 90 of 9.2 mm - 5 mm, such that Davis discloses that when the largest height is 0.2 mm and the width (diameter) is 2.0001 mm - 5 mm the largest height of the respective spreading protrusion 9 being is less than one tenth of the width (diameter) of the base of that respective spreading protrusion 90 (see P. 0034, 0037 and fig. 3 & 6).
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 height (largest height) of each nub 154 (surface element) to be 1/25th of the diameter (largest longitudinal extent) of the base, as taught by Davis, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
Bono teaches a device 1 forming a dosing device for retaining / dosing a liquid detergent composition, wherein the device 1 has spreading ridges 7 spaced apart from one another, each having a contour starting from a circumferential edge at a datum plane of its associated wall and extending to a central region of the spreading ridge 7, wherein in order to form a smooth transition from the datum plane, the contour has a radius of curvature (see fig. 3 and annotated fig. 4 below).
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 closure cap 10 such that the contour f the nubs 154 (surface elements) had a radius of curvature in order to form a smooth transition from the datum planes, as taught by Bono, in order to reduce stress concentrations and improve molding by decreasing warpage, flow resistance and providing more uniform cooling.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the contour be greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements), since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter of the surface element
Additionally or in the alternative, 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 radius of curvature of the contour greater than the diameter of the nubs 154 (surface elements) in order to reduce stress concentrations 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. Crawford (NPL U) provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Comers and figure 7.17).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the radius of curvature of the central region less than the radius of curvature of the contour, since applicant has not established criticality for the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour.
Additionally or alternatively, when comparing the radius of curvature of the central region and the radius of curvature of the contour there are three identified, predictable solutions. A first being the radius of curvature of the central region being identical to the radius of curvature of the contour, a second being the radius of curvature of the central region being greater than the radius of curvature of the contour, and a third being the radius of curvature of the central region being less than the radius of curvature of the contour. Additionally or in the alternative to design choice, 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 radius of curvature of the central region be less than the radius of curvature of the contour, as it would have been obvious to try the third identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10: Under the second interpretation the combination discloses a thread 134 (internal thread) which can be disposed on the interior surface 70 and which is configured to screw onto some detergent bottle (see P. 0025).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chawla (US 20110162151), Davis (US 20120298543), and Bono (GB 2499015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bryon (US 20040262311).
Claim 11: The combination discloses another portion of the cap 10 next to the first material, the vessel wall 60 (cap wall), comprising a second material of polypropylene (see P. 0033).
The combination discloses the claimed invention except a seal made of a material that is softer than the material of the cap wall.
Bryon teaches a vessel cap 18 having threads 16 and an o-ring 22 (seal) formed of an elastomer (see P. 0007 and fig. 1-3).
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 closure cap 10 to have an o-ring 22 (seal) made of elastomer (material that is softer than polypropylene), as taught by Bryon, in order to better seal the closure cap 10 from leakage.
The combination results in the o-ring 22 (seal) being made of an elastomer, which is a material that is softer than the polypropylene (material) of the vessel wall 60 (cap wall).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 2 of office action dated 3 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 3 March 2026.
The specification objections in paragraph 3 of office action dated 3 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 3 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 4-9 of office action dated 3 November 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 3 March 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that replacement drawing sheets have been submitted to overcome the drawing objection, the Examiner responds that the drawing objection has been overcome by amendment to the claim and not by replacement drawing sheets. The replacement drawing sheets do not show the argued limitation which is no longer present in the claims.
In response to applicant’s argument that the surface elements having a soft transition according to the invention lead to very good results in terms of breaking strength and maintenance of the tightness of the detergent bottle which provides reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function, the Examiner responds that this disclosure does not provide evidence of criticality for the radius of curvature of the contour being greater than the diameter of the surface element as this disclosure does not even attempt to compare the radius of curvature of the contour to the diameter of the surface element. Further, applicant has failed to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art combination of Chawla in light of Bono and Davis would result in a different function and this disclosure does not provide any reason why the claimed invention and the combination of Chawla and Bono would result in a different function as the combination of Chawla and Bono has a soft transition.
In response to applicant’s argument that they disagree that Crawford “provides evidence that stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases”, the Examiner responds that it is clear to those of ordinary skill in the art that figure 7.17 shows that stress concentration factor decreases as the radius/wall thickness factor increases. (see labels of X and Y axes and the graphed line).
In response to applicant’s argument that Crawford relates a stress concentration factor to the ratio of radius to wall thickness and nowhere does Crawford relate the diameter of the surface element, the Examiner replies that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). MPEP 2144 IV. Crawford explicitly discloses that “all radii should be as large as possible” and provides evidence that the radius of curvature at a circumferential edge is a results effective variable, where stress concentration factor decreases as radius/wall thickness factor increases (see section 7.6.7.1 Right-Angled Corners and figure 7.17).
In response to applicant’s argument that Crawford provides inner and outer radii dimensions for certain polymers without providing any information about their radius of curvature at table 7.10, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection as this table was not relied upon. However, the inner and outer radii dimensions mentioned at table 7.10 are radius of curvatures.
In response to applicant’s request for the Office to cite to a reference that does relate the ratio for the radius of curvature of the circumferential edge to the largest longitudinal extent of the surface element to breaking strength and maintenance of the tightness as described in the present application as required, the Examiner responds that it is not the Office’s responsibility to provide evidence of criticality of a claimed range. This responsibility falls to the applicant. Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) MPEP 2144.05 III. A.. Additionally, rationale different from applicant’s is permissible. MPEP 2144 IV.
In response to applicant’s argument that the dots of Davis do not have the property of being circular and having a largest height that is less than one tenth of the diameter as the height to width radio of the dots 90 of Davis are almost one-to-one because Davis discloses a width of from 0.2 mm to 5 mm and a height of 0.2 mm to 4 mm, the Examiner responds that Davis explicitly discloses that the spreading protrusions 90 can be circular dots with a width of from 0.2 mm to 5 mm [see P. 0034 and fig. 3 & 6] and a height of 0.2 mm to 4 mm [see P. 0037]. As such Davis discloses that when the height of the spreading protrusion 90 is 0.2 mm and the width is 5 mm the ratio of the height to the width is 1/25 which falls within the claimed range of less than one tenth.
Conclusion
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