DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on December 2, 2025.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 10 and 18 have been amended,
Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 20 have been cancelled,
Claims 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-19 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10, 11 and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the “U” shaped indentation…” could read “…the single “U” shaped indentation…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 10, ln. 3, the phrase, “…a cap coupled to the bottle opening member…” could read “…a cap is coupled to the bottle opening member…”
In claim 11, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the “U” shaped indentation…” could read “…the single “U” shaped indentation…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 18, ln. 18, the phrase, “…the “U” shaped indentation…” could read “…the single “U” shaped indentation…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erich (US 3285451 A; hereinafter Erich) in view of Wettermann (US 3542231 – art of record; hereinafter Wettermann).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, 16 and 18 (respectively), Erich teaches a cap embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-4), wherein the cap comprises:
a body member (1-4 and 6-7), the body having a circular groove formed on a bottom surface of the body member, the circular groove having a width “W” equal in size to the width “L” of a lip (5) formed around a top opening in a beverage container, wherein the circular groove comprises:
a first wall (2) formed around a diameter “D1” of the body member;
a second wall (3) extending vertically down from the body member and extending down towards a bottom end of the body member (as shown in annotated Erich Figs. 1 and 3 below) and formed around a diameter “D2” of the body member wherein the diameter “D1” is larger in size than “D2” forming the circular groove; and
a single “U” shaped indentation formed midway down and horizontally around a perimeter of the first wall (as shown in annotated Erich Figs. 1 and 3 below); and
a cavity is formed in a center area of the bottom surface of the body member, the cavity configuring the second into a ring, wherein a center area of the ring having unblocked access to a bottom area of the body member;
wherein the cap is formed of a pliable material, when the cap is placed over the top opening in the beverage bottle so that the first wall and the second wall engage the lip formed around the top opening of the beverage bottle with the lip positioned within the single “U” shaped indentation formed on the first wall, the pliable material of the cap allowing the second wall to move inwards into the cavity causing the cap to move upwards to release gas pressure and come off the lip of the beverage bottle (Erich Col. 2 ln. 27-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
875
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Erich fails to teach a bottle opening member, the cap [is] coupled to [or directly attached to] the bottle opening member; and lastly wherein the bottle opening member comprises: a leg member which extends out from the cap; and a slot formed at a distal end of the leg member.
Wettermann is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a beverage container and a beverage container closure. Wettermann teaches a combination bottle opener and cover comprising: a bottle opening member (1); and a cap (5-6, 9 and 10), wherein the cap comprises: a body member (9 and 10), the body member having a circular groove formed on a bottom surface of the body member, the circular groove having a width "W" equal in size to the width "L" of a lip formed around a top opening in a beverage bottle (8);
wherein the cap is coupled to [or directly attached to] the bottle opening member; and
wherein the bottle opening member comprises: a leg member which extends out of the cap; and
a slot (2) formed at a distal end of the leg member (Wettermann Col. 2 Ln. 19-49 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cap (of Erich) with a similar bottle opening member (as taught by Wettermann) because “…it was natural to combine such closing devices with bottle openers so that one had both devices to hand when they were needed. Such combinations have, in the course of time, become quite widespread….is primarily to arrive at an improvement to a bottle opener which is combined with a closing device in which the bottle opener is cheap to produce, hygienic, simple to use, does not consist of moving parts, and does not lead to elements of danger when being applied or removed” (see Wettermann Col. 1 Ln. 26-30 and 45-50, respectively).
Regarding claim 3, 13 and 19, modified Erich as above further teaches wherein the cap is formed of plastic (see Erich claim 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, modified Erich as above further teaches wherein the [single] “U” shaped indentation has a depth equal in size to a depth “D” of the lip formed around the top opening in the beverage bottle (see annotated Erich Figs. 1 and 3 above).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Erich as above further teaches the bottle opening member is attached to the cap (see Wettermann Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9 and 17, modified Erich as above further teaches wherein the bottle opening member is formed of metal (Wettermann Col. 2 Ln. 38-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736