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 .
The amendments filed 2/5/2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Improper grammar “a) a cap and a b) a closure base…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation “when the cap is in an open position”. However, Claims 1 and 5 from which claims 6 and 8 depend recites “when the cap is in the open position”, and there is no support for two separate/distinct open positions with regard to the cap and/or the flap(s) extended position. The flaps are originally disclosed as having one configuration in one and only one open position of the cap, and is not clear what other heretofore unsupported open position could be referenced by the limitation. The claims are new matter and cannot be treated on the merits.
Claims 7 and 9 recite the limitation ‘the cylindrical wall further includes a recess at its end distal to the opening”. However, claims 1 and 5 from which claims 7 and 9 depend only recite wherein the plug includes “a cylindrical wall extending from an underside of the cap”, which does not have the claimed recess “at its end distal to the opening” (for example, an end of the cylindrical wall of the plug distal to the opening would be located immediately adjacent wall 22, where there is no support for the claimed recess at this location. The claims are new matter and cannot be treated on the merits.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation "the open position”, and “the amount of force” in parts a) and c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the wall". Both claims 1 and 2 recite separate cylindrical walls, and it is unclear which wall is being referred to by the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one flap eventually assumes the original position", however, there is no antecedent basis for an original position of the flap, only for the original position of the cap. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 9 recite the limitation "its end distal to the opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e. the cylindrical wall having an end distal to the opening).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,854,618 (Beghnini hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Beghnini discloses: A closure comprising a) a cap (6) and a b) a closure base (1-4) hingedly attached (at 7) to the cap and having an opening (5) c) the cap having a depending plug (20-25), characterized in that the depending plug has a cylindrical wall extending from an underside of the cap and a recess (22, 23), the opening has at least one flap (14) extending radially inwardly from the opening when the cap is in the open position (see Fig. 1), and wherein the flap is connected to the cylindrical wall by a plastic hinge (note position of flap 14 from fig. 1 to fig. 3, the flap 14 hinges from one position to the other), and in that the at least one flap being deformable such that upon closing of the cap the at least one flap folds downwardly (see Fig. 3) whereby the downwardly extending at least one flap provides interference with opening of the cap thereby increasing the amount of force which would be needed to open the cap thereby minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent opening (see Fig. 3, deformation of 14 from position in Fig. 3 would be required to remove cap 6 from engagement with base 1-4). Note that “cylindrical” is being interpreted broadly to include tapered/recessed/undercut configurations in the same manner as Applicant’s original disclosure (mentions of “cylindrical plug 26” an “cylindrical sidewall 28”, which are note shown as perfect/straight/consistent radiused cylinders).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beghnini fails to disclose instead wherein the depending plug has the at least one flap.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the flap on the plug instead of the opening, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Please note that in the instant application, page 4, lines 12-20, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beghnini discloses the claimed invention including wherein the opening in the closure base is defined by a cylindrical wall (at 22, see Fig. 3, in view of the modification as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beghnini discloses the claimed invention including wherein the wall includes a recess (22) which receives the one or more flaps (14) extending from the plug when the cap is closed (in view of the modification as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beghnini discloses the claimed invention including wherein the recess includes a top wall and the one or more flaps abut the top wall (at 22) when the cap is closed (see Fig. 3).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beghnini discloses A closure comprising a) a cap and a b) a closure base hingedly attached to the cap and having an opening c) the cap having a depending plug, characterized in that the depending plug includes a cylindrical wall extending from an underside of the cap and wherein the depending plug has at least one flap extending radially outwardly from the plug when the cap is in an original position in the open position, and wherein the at least one flap is connected to the cylindrical wall by a plastic hinge, and in that the at least one flap being deformable such that upon closing of the cap the at least one flap folds upwardly whereby the upwardly extending at least one flap provides interference with opening of the cap thereby increasing the amount of force which would be needed to open the cap thereby minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent opening (as in re claim 1 above) and wherein the at least one flap eventually assumes the original position extending outwardly after extra force is exerted to force the cap open (see Fig. 1, as in re claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2/5/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant merely alleges that “a complete redesign” of the package of Beghnini would be required in order to reverse the locations of the flap/lip 14 and that “the lip would have to be redesigned”. Applicant fails to elaborate on how reversing the locations of the lip to the plug and the recess to the opening would be beyond the purview of a designer. Beghnini also discloses a hinge located at the flap 14, as it is clear from Figs. 1 and 3 above that the flap 14 hinges from these positions about a curved portion attaching the flap to the wall, which “hinges” between the positions.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights