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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1, 10, and 23 were amended, claim 2, 6-7, 9, 12, 21 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-20, 22-23 are pending. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn.
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 1,3-5,8,10-11 and 22-23 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 1, 10, and 23 states ". It appears that the articulating element refers to a region on the finished product that includes the gas vent. Is this stating that the articulating element is formed at the same time as the neck? If so, this does not appear to be true or supported by the original disclosure. Figure 10 shows the retractable punches (208). From the specification [0051], it appears that the clamping jaws are applied to a neck. This is separate from the formation process of the neck (prior to the recesses being present). Overall, it is unclear the limitation being placed and whether it is supported by the as filed specification. Claims 3-5,8, 11 and 22 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, 10, and 23 and are also 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Crabbe (US 2423295 A) in view of Snyder (US 4007848 A).
With respect to claim 1, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure (C) comprising a female thread; a blow molded container comprising: a body (1); and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including a neck finish, the neck finish comprising a male thread (4) having a length and being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck, the neck including a continuous inner surface (surface 11) and an outer surface (surface opposite inner surface) opposite the inner surface, the male thread (4) extending from the outer surface, the neck including at least one recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the at least one recess (10) defining at least one gas vent, the at least one gas vent (10) being spaced apart from the male thread, and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein gas within the container exits through the at least one gas vent when the male thread engages the female thread . (“engages” can be the initial engagement of the threads)
However, Crabbe failed to disclose of a helical male thread, the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length, the male thread sections defining at least one gap therebetween, wherein gas within the container exits through the at least one gap. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle closures, Snyder taught of a helical male thread with openings (18, 50, 54, etc.) to aide in the release of gas (abstract and col 1 lines 23-37) from pressurized substances stored within the container. Dreyer states on col 3 line 65- col 4 line 7, “With the invention, on the other hand, short, direct, rapidly available venting channels provide prompt release of gas pressure within the cap and avoid missiling.” Teaching that each vent of assembly of Snyder is aligned with one another, in incorporation with Crabbe would be obvious to have a venting structure that is aligned to promote quick release of gas. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be helical and have interrupted segments as taught by Snyder in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: The use of interrupted threads in closures is well-known in the art. Other prior art includes; Dreyer (AU 707771 B2), Dreyer (WO 2014012904 A2), Sanford (US 2351150 A).
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent (10) includes a plurality of vents.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the neck includes a circumferential lip (top surface of 11) that defines an opening of the neck and is configured to sealing engage the closure, the inner surface defining the opening.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent includes a plurality of vents (10) disposed about the lip.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe in view of Snyder further teaches wherein the male thread is discontinuous and includes spaced apart gaps extending therethrough. (as taught by the threads of Snyder)
With respect to claim 10, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure (C) comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1) defining a volume and having a base, and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including a circumferential lip (top surface adjacent 11), an inner surface (surface below 11) and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, the inner surface defining an opening of the neck, the lip being configured to engage the closure, the neck further including and a male thread (4) having a length, the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1-2, 3); and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein the lip includes at least one recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the at least one recess defining at least one gas vent, the at least one vent (10) being spaced apart from the male wherein gas within the volume exits the volume through the at least one gas vent when the male thread engages the female thread.
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length, the male thread sections defining at least one gap therebetween; the at least one vent being spaced apart from the male thread and aligned with the at least one gap, and wherein gas exits the volume through the at least one gap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle closures, Snyder taught of a helical male thread with openings (18, 50, 54, etc.) to aide in the release of gas (abstract and col 1 lines 23-37) from pressurized substances stored within the container. Dreyer states on col 3 line 65- col 4 line 7, “With the invention, on the other hand, short, direct, rapidly available venting channels provide prompt release of gas pressure within the cap and avoid missiling.” Teaching that each vent of assembly of Snyder is aligned with one another, in incorporation with Crabbe it would be obvious to have a venting structure that is aligned to promote quick release of gas. (Further reference Dreyer WO 2014012904 A2 elaborates on the advantage of aligned venting recesses and creates “venting behavior” on page 3 [0006]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be have interrupted aligned segments as taught by Snyder in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: The use of interrupted threads in closures is well-known in the art. Other prior art includes; Dreyer (AU 707771 B2), Dreyer (WO 2014012904 A2), Sanford (US 2351150 A).
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent (10) includes a plurality of vents disposed about the lip.
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the atleast one vent includes a configuration adapted to provide tamper evidence. (Broad statement, the device is capable of having a tamper evidence sticker placed on it to meet the claimed limitation.)
With respect to claim 23, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1), and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including opposite inner and outer surfaces, the inner defining an opening (inside of 11), the neck including a male thread (4) having a length and extending from the outer surface, , the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1), the neck includes a recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the vent (10) being spaced apart from a crest of the male thread (4), and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein gas within the container exits the container through the gap when the male thread engages the female thread .
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length neck including a gap extending through the male thread and the recess defining a gas vent aligned with the gap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle closures, Snyder taught of a helical male thread with openings (18, 50, 54, etc.) to aide in the release of gas (abstract and col 1 lines 23-37) from pressurized substances stored within the container. Dreyer states on col 3 line 65- col 4 line 7, “With the invention, on the other hand, short, direct, rapidly available venting channels provide prompt release of gas pressure within the cap and avoid missiling.” Teaching that each vent of assembly of Snyder is aligned with one another, in incorporation with Crabbe would be obvious to have a venting structure that is aligned to promote quick release of gas. (Further reference Dreyer WO 2014012904 A2 elaborates on the advantage of aligned venting recesses and creates “venting behavior” on page 3 [0006]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be have interrupted aligned segments as taught by Snyder in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Claim(s) 10-11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabbe (US 2423295 A) in view of Dreyer (WO 2014012904 A2).
With respect to claim 10, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure (C) comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1) defining a volume and having a base, and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including a circumferential lip (top surface adjacent 11), an inner surface (surface below 11) and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, the inner surface defining an opening of the neck, the lip being configured to engage the closure, the neck further including and a male thread (4) having a length, the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1-2, 3); and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein the lip includes at least one recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the at least one vent (10) being spaced apart from the male wherein gas within the volume exits the volume through the at least one gas vent when the male thread engages the female thread.
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections and the at least one recess defining at least one gas vent aligned with the at least one gap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely closures, Dreyer taught of a closure with discontinuous male threads. This discontinuity served as the venting feature and was aligned to provide for good venting behavior ( [0006] on page 3). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified male threads of Crabbe to include aligned gaps as taught by Dreyer in order to allow for better venting behavior.
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent (10) includes a plurality of vents disposed about the lip.
With respect to claim 23, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1), and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including opposite inner and outer surfaces, the inner defining an opening (inside of 11), the neck including a male thread (4) having a length and extending from the outer surface, , the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1), the neck includes a recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the vent (10) being spaced apart from a crest of the male thread (4), and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein gas within the container exits the container through the gap when the male thread engages the female thread .
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising space apart male thread sections along the length and the neck including a gap extending through the male thread and the recess defining a gas vent aligned with the gap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely closures, Dreyer taught of a closure with discontinuous male threads. This discontinuity served as the venting feature and was aligned to provide for good venting behavior ( [0006] on page 3). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified male threads of Crabbe to include aligned gaps as taught by Dreyer in order to allow for better venting behavior.
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Crabbe (US 2423295 A) in view of Covi (WO 2021009785 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure (C) comprising a female thread; a blow molded container comprising: a body (1); and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including a neck finish, the neck finish comprising a male thread (4) having a length and being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck, the neck including a continuous inner surface (surface 11) and an outer surface (surface opposite inner surface) opposite the inner surface, the male thread (4) extending from the outer surface, the neck including at least one recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the at least one recess (10) defining at least one gas vent, the at least one gas vent (10) being spaced apart from the male thread, and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein gas within the container exits through the at least one gas vent when the male thread engages the female thread . (“engages” can be the initial engagement of the threads)
However, Crabbe failed to disclose of a helical male thread, the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length, the male thread sections defining at least one gap therebetween, wherein gas within the container exits through the at least one gap. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle necks, Covi taught of a helical male thread with openings (39, 36) to aide in the release of gas (page 5 lines 20-23) alignment of venting features allowing for substantially continuous air passage channel. Crabbe teaches of threading but Covi teaches of the addition of gaps in the threading (to aid in venting) and an alignment of venting features. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be helical and have interrupted segments aligned with the gas vent as taught by Covi in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: The use of interrupted threads in closures is well-known in the art. Other prior art includes; Dreyer (AU 707771 B2), Dreyer (WO 2014012904 A2), Sanford (US 2351150 A).
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent (10) includes a plurality of vents.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the neck includes a circumferential lip (top surface of 11) that defines an opening of the neck and is configured to sealing engage the closure, the inner surface defining the opening.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent includes a plurality of vents (10) disposed about the lip.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe in view of Snyder further teaches wherein the male thread is discontinuous and includes spaced apart gaps extending therethrough. (as taught by the threads of Covi)
With respect to claim 10, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure (C) comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1) defining a volume and having a base, and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including a circumferential lip (top surface adjacent 11), an inner surface (surface below 11) and an outer surface opposite the inner surface, the inner surface defining an opening of the neck, the lip being configured to engage the closure, the neck further including and a male thread (4) having a length, the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1-2, 3); and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein the lip includes at least one recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the at least one recess defining at least one gas vent, the at least one vent (10) being spaced apart from the male wherein gas within the volume exits the volume through the at least one gas vent when the male thread engages the female thread.
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length, the male thread sections defining at least one gap therebetween; the at least one vent being spaced apart from the male thread and aligned with the at least one gap, and wherein gas exits the volume through the at least one gap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle necks, Covi taught of a helical male thread with openings (39, 36) to aide in the release of gas (page 5 lines 20-23) alignment of venting features allowing for substantially continuous air passage channel. Crabbe teaches of threading, but Covi teaches of the addition of gaps in the threading (to aid in venting) and an alignment of venting features. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be helical and have interrupted segments aligned with the gas vent as taught by Covi in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: The use of interrupted threads in closures is well-known in the art. Other prior art includes; Dreyer (AU 707771 B2), Dreyer (WO 2014012904 A2), Sanford (US 2351150 A).
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Crabbe further discloses wherein the at least one vent (10) includes a plurality of vents disposed about the lip.
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the atleast one vent includes a configuration adapted to provide tamper evidence. (Broad statement, the device is capable of having a tamper evidence sticker placed on it to meet the claimed limitation.)
With respect to claim 23, Crabbe discloses a container system comprising: a closure comprising a female thread; and a blow molded container comprising: a body (1), and a neck (2) coupled to the body, the neck including opposite inner and outer surfaces, the inner defining an opening (inside of 11), the neck including a male thread (4) having a length and extending from the outer surface, , the male thread being configured to engage the female thread to couple the closure to the neck (fig 1), the neck includes a recess (10) extending into the outer surface without extending through the inner surface, the vent (10) being spaced apart from a crest of the male thread (4), and an articulating element (portion of neck that includes 10) formed with the neck, the articulating element including the at least one recess defining the at least one gas vent, wherein gas within the container exits the container through the gap when the male thread engages the female thread .
Crabbe failed to disclose the male thread comprising spaced apart male thread sections along the length neck including a gap extending through the male thread and the recess defining a gas vent aligned with the gap. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely bottle necks, Covi taught of a helical male thread with openings (39, 36) to aide in the release of gas (page 5 lines 20-23) alignment of venting features allowing for substantially continuous air passage channel. Crabbe teaches of threading but Covi teaches of the addition of gaps in the threading (to aid in venting) and an alignment of venting features. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threads of Crabbe to be helical and have interrupted segments aligned with the gas vent as taught by Covi in order to allow for further improved gas release.
Examiner Note: the limitation “an articulating element formed with the neck” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Examiner Note: Crabbe discloses a system capable of being blow molded. the limitation blow molded container is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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 process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the amended material, the applicant argues that the articulating element is a unique structural feature that results from a novel manufacturing method. Firstly, the claims are directed towards a product, not a method for producing a product. Therefore, the term "formed with" is viewed .
Applicant states “Crabbe is silent regarding its container having an articulating element formed with the neck” followed by “Rather Crabbe discloses a fixed recess (10) integrally formed in the neck outer surface”. This appears to support Crabbe reading on the amended material of claim 1. Wouldn’t something “integrally formed in the neck” read on “formed with the neck”? Regardless, the prior art and present invention have the same structural features as claim 1. 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 process.
Lastly, it is unclear the structural limitation being stated and whether it is supported by the original disclosure, refer to 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4747502 A, US 8453866 B2, US 20150321789 A1, US 20170197764 A1, US 20180134460 A1, US 20220015560 A1, WO 2014012904 A2, and WO 2021009785 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights