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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “retaining strip has an internal screw thread formed inside the retaining strip, the internal screw thread configured to interact with the external screw thread of the container neck” in claim 1; the “at a base of the threaded part an inwardly protruding inner cone in the form of a sealing cylinder or a sealing ring is formed and is configured to interact sealingly with an inner wall of the container neck in a closed position” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities, appropriate correction is required.
Specifically, claim 5 requires that “the tear strength of the plurality of first predetermined breading webs is equal to or greater than the tear strength of the plurality of second predetermined breaking webs. However, claim 5 depends from claim 1, which requires that they are different. Thus, the portion of claim 5 that says “equal to”, if not corrected, could introduce issues regarding 112b. In order to advance prosecution, since the claim says “or greater”, then it will be treated on the merits.
Regarding claim 6, the same issue occurs, refer to the above objection of claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman – EP1961669 in view of Grussen – US Patent No. 3904062; hereinafter Berman and Grussen.
Regarding Claim 1 and claim 19, Berman discloses a container (1 or container with bottle neck (2)) comprising a container body; a container neck (2’) adjoining the container body; an external screw thread formed on the container neck (see Figure 8); and
a closing cap (including 3) for closing the pouring opening of a container (1 or container with bottle neck (2)), comprising:
a cylindrical threaded part (see at least [0014] “screw cap 3”) having an open edge (edge of opened end) and an internal screw thread that can interact with an external screw thread (24) of a container neck (bottle neck 2’ – Fig. 8) of the container;
a tamper-proof strip (5) is configured to be retained on a protrusion (25 Fig. 8) formed on the container neck; and
a retaining strip (4) having a first end and a second end (see at least Figure 6, wherein the strip 4 has one end connected to 3 and one end connected to 5) and a first edge and a second edge (topmost and bottommost edges of 4), the first end fixedly connected to the open edge fo the threaded part (see Fig. 6), the second end fixedly connected to the tamper-proof strip (5; see Figure 6), the first edge detachably connected to the open edge of the threaded part by at least one predetermined breaking element (37), and the second edge being detachably connected to the tamper-proof strip (5) by at least one second predetermined breaking element (35);
whereby either the at least one first predetermined breaking element and the at least one second predetermined breaking element have different tear strength (see at least paragraph [0015]); and
the retraining strip (4) has an internal screw thread (from Fig. 8 it appears that the portions 42 of the strip 4 extend beyond the frangible connections 35-37 and are thus considered an internal thread) formed inside the retaining strip, the internal screw thread configured to interact with the external screw thread of the container neck (interpreted as intended use, as the cap with the strips are screwed/placed over the bottle neck 2’ the internal thread of 4 is capable of touching/interacting with the external thread of the bottle nec as it is moved downwards); and
the tear strengths of the first and the second predetermined breaking elements are configured such that when unscrewing the threaded part, the first or second predetermined breaking elements will tear and the retaining strip will remain on the threaded part or on the tamper -proof strip after unscrewing the threaded part (see for example Fig. 2).
In the case that it is believed that Berman does not disclose the retaining strip including an internal screw thread formed inside the retaining strip, it is noted that this is old and well known in the art. For example Grussen discloses similar invention with a cap (including 4) with a retaining strip (3) and a tamper-proof strip (2). Wherein the retaining strip has an internal screw thread formed inside the retaining strip (see at least Figure 3, the bump in element 3 towards the bottle 1). Thus, in view of the teachings of Grussen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Berman by having the retaining strip to include an internal thread in order to assist in guiding the cap strip assembly, or increasing the strength of the retaining strip.
Regarding claim 2, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses the first predetermined breaking element (35) is a first predetermined breaking web and the second predetermined breaking element (37) is a second predetermined breaking web.
Regarding claim 3, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 2 and further discloses the cap comprising a plurality of first predetermined breaking webs (37) arranged between the open edge of the threaded part and the first edge of the retaining trip (4).
Regarding claim 4, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 2 and further discloses the cap comprising a plurality of second predetermined breaking webs (37) arranged between the tamper-proof strip (5) and the second edge of the retaining strip (4).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 4 and further discloses wherein the tear strength of the plurality of first predetermined breaking webs is equal to or greater than the tear strength of the plurality of second predetermined breaking webs, or vice versa (regarding claim 6). Please see rejection of claim 1 and Figures 1-4; and also refer to paragraph [0017] where Berman explicitly discloses that “it is not significant with regard to the sequence in which the break-oof bridges 35, 36, 37 break when unscrewing. The double function that the guarantee strip 4 firstly acts as an integrity guarantee element and thereafter as a securing strip, is not changed by the sequence of the destruction of the break-off bridges.” Thus, Berman discloses that you could have for example element 37 be stronger than 35. Thus, in view of this it can be said that Berman discloses the limitations of claim 6; or in the alternative would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 4 and further discloses wherein the plurality of first and second predetermined breaking webs are evenly spaced along the first and second edges, respectively (as best seen in Figures 1-6). The prior art to Grussen teaches that it is known to have frangible connecting pins regularly spaced along the upper and lower edges of the strip. Thus, even if it is argued that Berman does not disclose this feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Berman to have the plurality of first and second predetermined breaking webs are evenly spaced along the first and second edges, since such a modification is old and well known in the art in order to have the same strength throughout the entire strip and prevent accidental separation of the strip. Even further, applicant admits in paragraph [0046] that the first and second predetermined breaking webs 41 and 43 “may be” arranged evenly. Since applicant explicitly states that they “may” be evenly spaced, it is not required that they are evenly spaced.
Regarding claim 8, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 4 and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of the first predetermined breaking webs have the same cross-sectional area and each of the plurality of second predetermined breaking webs have the same cross-sectional area. See at least paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 9, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the retaining strip extend over a circular arc with an angle between 180 and 350 degrees (since the retaining strip (4) extend all around, then it will at least extend over an arc with an angle between 180 and 350 degrees; note that the claim does not require that the strip is only between 180 to 350 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first end and the second end of the retaining strip form a gap therebetween (see gap in which the middle portion of the retaining strip is located).
Regarding claim 11, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein a position of the tamper-proof strip (5) can be changed in an axial direction and in an circumferential location (capable of when it is being assembled, or after unscrewing the lid)
Regarding claim 12, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein an edge of the tamper-proof strip (5) is configured for receiving the retaining strip (via the frangible connections 35)
Regarding claim 13, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1, wherein a first fixed connection between the first end of the retaining strip and the open edge of the threaded part is bendable and/or a second fixed connection between the second end of the retaining strip and the tamper-proof strip is bendable (see Figure 6, also they are made out of plastic, thus would be bendable to some extent).
Regarding claim 14, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1, however Berman does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 14. Grussen, teaches wherein at a base (top) of the threaded part an inwardly protruding inner cone (13) in the form of a sealing cylinder/ring is formed and is configured to interact sealingly with an inner wall of the container neck in a closed position for the purposes of creating an hermetic seal (see at least column 2, lines 6-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Berman by having the base with the protruding inner cone as claimed, in view of the teachings of Grussen in order to ensure a hermetic seal and/or enhance the sealing properties of the cap of Berman.
Regarding claim 15, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1, however, Berman as modified does not explicitly disclose the claimed range. However, the width of the strip is a result effective variable. For example, if the width of the strip is too big, then the threaded portion of the lids/caps would be too small, and the lid/cap will not be able to properly perform its intended closure operation. Thus, a person skilled in the art could, by routine experimentation, found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the width be between 3mm and 7 mm.
Regarding claim 16, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further it is noted that the closing cap of Berman is configured to interact with a standardized container neck having an external screw thread (note that this claim is extremely broad and does not require any particular interaction, and also does not define what a standardized container is; the prior arts cap an interact with any container neck having an external screw thread as it is not required by the claim that it fits or interacts in any particular manner).
Regarding claim 17, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 1 and further discloses the closing cap is made of a plastic material (see claim 1, line 2).
Regarding claim 18, Berman as modified discloses the closing cap according to claim 14. Furthermore, the recitation “ wherein the cylindrical threaded part, the inner cone, the tamper-proof strip, the retaining strip, and the at least one first and second predetermined breaking element are integrally formed” is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Berman as modified is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim. Please see at least Figures 1 and 8, where all these elements (and as modified to include the cone from Grussen) are connected together, thus integral.
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman – EP1961669 in view of Grussen – US Patent No. 3904062 and further in view of Gooden – US PG Pub. 20080035602; hereinafter Berman, Grussen and Gooden.
Regarding claims 20-24, Berman as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19, however does not disclose the particulars of claim 20-24. However, Gooden discloses a container body (14) defining a recess (194) having a depth configured to receive a closing cap (see Figure 10b), wherein the closing cap is retained in the recess by a form of fit and/or force fit when the closing cap is received in the recess (see at least paragraph 0049]), wherein the distance between the recess and the strap (128) is not greater than the length of the strap (128); wherein the recess has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 10A) with a base and a lateral surface defining a depth of the recess, and inner diameter of the recess being essentially the same as an outer diameter of the close cap (see paragraph [0049] interference fit); wherein the depth of the recess is less than a height of the closing ca (see Figure 10B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Berman to have the limitations of claims 20-24, as taught by Gooden, in order to allow the user to retain the cap in an open position and fixed (see Figure 10B and paragraph [0049] of Gooden).
Note that as modified, and especially in view of the teachings of Gooden, Berman would necessarily have a distance between the recess and the tamper-proof strip is not greater than t length of the retaining strip between the first and second ends, otherwise the strip would break.
Response to Amendment
The proposed reply filed on 1/30/2026 overcomes the Drawing objections and 112b rejection set forth in the 10/30/2023 Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any the combined references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lecisnki – US Patent No. 4805792 discloses similar structure to that required in claim 1 with the cap and two strips with frangible portions on two edges of the middle strip..
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 ORLANDO E AVILES whose telephone number is (571)270-5531. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Jonathan C. Teixeira Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ORLANDO E. AVILES
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3700
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
