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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8, 13-14, 16-26 are pending.
Claims 2, 9-12, and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 15-19 are amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1: “opening element” reads as “an element (generic placeholder) for opening (function)…” The claims are read in view of description presented for fig. 3 or 4 wherein the opening element comprises a cutting element or fig. 13 wherein the opening means comprises a hook.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 “the opening element comprises a cutting element arranged in the interior of the base element” of claim 1 and subject matter of claim 24 together 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 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.
Claim 24 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.
Claim 24 appear to be directed to fig. 13 comprising opening element 22. However, this embodiment does not disclose an opening element that comprises a cutting element as claimed in claim 1. The written disclose fails to disclose this limitation, as such this is considered new matter.
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.
Claim 1, 3-8, 13, 14, 16-26 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the opening element is designed such that a pour opening is created inside the resealable pouring element when the opening element is opened […] wherein the opening element comprises a cutting element arranged in the interior of the base element”. It is unclear as to how the opening element can be a cutting element (10) but be also open. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue. Further correction and or clarification is required.
Claim 24 appears to disclose the embodiment of fig. 13 wherein the opening element is 22. It is unclear as to how the opening element comprises a cutting element while also having “the opening element comprise an opening element arranged in the unopened state in the interior of the base element and connected thereto in a materially-bonded manner and at least one force transfer element, which is arranged in the interior of the screw cap and is connected thereto in a materially-bonded manner, and wherein the opening element is connected to the at least one force transfer element in a materially-bonded manner.” All the dependent claims inherit the same issue. Further correction and or clarification is required.
Claim 24 recites “the opening element comprise an opening element”. It is unclear as to how the same structure comprise the same structure. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue. Further correction and or clarification is required.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edie (US 20190375555) in view of Seki (JP 2013107673), KWON (WO 2009048273) and Ott (US20120181281).
Regarding claim 1, Edie discloses, A resealable pouring element for cardboard/plastic composite packages, the resealable pouring element comprising a base element (See annotated fig. below) having external thread (136), a screw cap (Fig. 2A; 12 and 14) with internal thread (30) , wherein an anchor ring (18) is arranged below the screw cap (Fig. 2A), is connected thereto in a rotationally-fixed manner and is connected to the base element so as to be radially freely rotatable around the base element (web as annotated has a smooth surface as shown in fig. 2b and thereby is able to rotate around the base) and in a tension-resistant manner in the axial direction, in that, to securely fasten the screw cap to the base element even in the unscrewed state, the anchor ring is connected to the screw cap in a hinged manner via a hinge element (32), whose pivot axis is aligned tangentially to the outer circumference of the screw cap (Fig. 2A, 4), a pour opening (See annotated fig. below) is created inside the pouring element, in that the base element has an outwardly protruding and circumferential collar (See annotated fig. below) on its outer side, in that the anchor ring has at its lower end a circumferential web (See annotated fig. below), which is directed towards the base element and which is arranged below the collar, in order to prevent the anchor ring from being pulled off over the collar, in that the collar is arranged in the unopened state in the axial direction in the upper region of the anchor ring such that when the screw cap is unscrewed, a movement of the hinge element in the axial direction is possible until the web comes into contact with the collar and in that (there is a clear gap between the web and the collar which would allow for vertical movement of the cap until the web hits the collar; Fig. 3B), when the screw cap is pivoted away, the pivot axis of the hinge element is arranged in the axial direction in the upper half of the base element.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Edie does not explicitly disclose, a base element having a circumferential fastening flange and with opening element arranged at least in an unopened state of the resealable pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer
Seki is in the field of endeavor and discloses a base element (Fig. 12; 2) having a circumferential fastening flange (Fig. 3, fusion piece 23) and with opening element (fig. 12; 44) arranged at least an unopened state (Fig. 12) of the resealable pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer (4).
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 Edie to incorporate a base element having a circumferential fastening flange so that it can be attached to varieties of bottle/container via fuse piece and with opening element arranged at least in the unopened state of the pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer as taught by Seki for the purpose of having additional seal to prevent any leakage.
Edie as modified does not explicitly disclose, the anchor ring has a slot running in the circumferential direction, which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts and a lower part, wherein the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction.
KWON is in the field of endeavor and discloses, an anchor ring (fig. 3; 33) has a slot (fig. 3; 34) running in the circumferential direction which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts (See annotated fig. below) and a lower part (See annotated fig. below)where the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
318
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Edie to incorporate an anchor ring that has a slot running in the circumferential direction, which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts and a lower part, wherein the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction as taught by KWON for the purpose allowing the user to increase the length of the hinge as needed.
The combination does not teach the opening element comprised a cutting
element arranged in the interior of the base element and at least one driver web arranged in the interior of the screw cap and connected thereto in a form-fitting or material-bonded manner.
Ott teaches a reclosable pouring element for composite cardboard/plastic packaging with a
cutting piece and tamper evident pieces. Ott further teaches the opening element (Fig. 2 self-opening
closure 2) comprised a cutting element (Fig. 2 cutting element 7) arranged in the interior of the base
element (Fig. 2 pouring nozzle 3) and at least one driver web (Fig. 2 wall segments 26) arranged in the
interior of the screw cap (Fig. 2 cap 1) and connected thereto in a form-fitting or material-bonded manner [0020].
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Otto to include wall segments to the screw cap 1 and a self-opening closure with cutting element to aid in opening the of spout ting 44 via the annular thin fragile line 43 by piercing it upon opening via force as shown by the wall segments 26 to the cap 1 and a self-opening closure 2 with cutting element 7 for additional aid in opening the container to pour the contents.
The limitation “wherein the opening element are designed such that a pour opening is created inside the resealable pouring element when the opening element is opened” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Edie as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Herein, a pour opening would be crated when the opening element is opened.
Regarding claim 3, Edie as modified discloses, the slot (34) is arranged in the circumferential direction in the region of the hinge element, wherein the hinge element is connected to the upper parts of the anchor ring (since the slot would be placed under the hinge element 32 of Edie) such that in each case the end of the upper parts facing the hinge element is twisted after pivoting open the screw cap.
Regarding claim 4, Edie as modified discloses, the hinge element is arranged centrally to the slot in the circumferential direction (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Edie as modified discloses, wherein the screw cap in the pivoted open state at an opening angle of 120-150 is locked by the hinge element in its opening position in relation to its pivot opening. (Edie as modified has all the structure as disclosed and therefore expected to perform the same; Fig. 2A, 3B).
Regarding claim 7, Edie as modified discloses, the screw cap is radially freely rotatable in its locked opening position (the ring 18 of Edie has a smooth interior which would allow for radially freely rotatability) .
Regarding claim 8, Edie as modified discloses, hinge part (32) is arranged above 1/3 of base element in relation it its pivot axis in the unopen state, in the event this is not disclosed, Seki explicitly discloses a hinge connection (6) that is arranged above 1/3 of base element (23) in relation it its pivot axis in the unopen state (Fig. 3) and 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 Edie to have hinge part is arranged above of base element in relation it its pivot axis in the unopen state as taught by Seki as this is a mere optimization and would allow the user to easily open the cap.
Regarding claim 13, Edie does not appear to disclose, wherein when the screw cap is pivoted away, the pivot axis of the hinge element is arranged in the axial direction in the upper third of the base element.
Seki teaches when the screw cap is pivoted away (Fig. 6 the cap 1 is open and pivoted away), the pivot axis of the hinge element (Fig. 6 hinge 6) is arranged in the axial direction in the upper third of the base element (Fig. 6 shows the hinge 6 almost at the lip of the wall 21 making it in the upper third of the base element).
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Seki to have screw cap is pivoted away, the pivot axis of the hinge element is arranged in the axial direction in the upper third of the base element to allow ease of pouring.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination teaches wherein the at least one driver web (Fig. 2 wall
segments 26 '281) protrudes at least partially (Fig. 2 shows the wall segments 26 extending outside of
the sidewalls of cap 1 to better interact with the self-opening closure 2 '281) from the interior of the
screw cap (Fig. 2 cap 1) in the pivoted-open state.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination teaches wherein the at least one driver web (Fig. 2 wall
segments 26 '281) is attached as close as possible (Fig. 3 shows the wall segments 26 outside the inner
circle of the cap which is outside ¾ of the cap diameter putting it closer to the cap 1 sidewalls than
toward the middle of the cap '281) to the hinge element (Fig. 3 hinged part 35) in the circumferential
direction.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination teaches wherein a plurality of driver webs Fig. 2 wall
segments 26 '281 arranged evenly distributed over the circumference provided Fig. 2 shows the two
wall segments opposite of each other.
Regarding claim 24, Edie as modified discloses, wherein the fastening flange (Seki, Fig. 3 fusion piece 23) is connected to the inner side of the composite package( Seki, Fig. 3 container main body 3 [0020] In order to fuse the fusion piece 23 and the container main body 3, this mouth is made of polyethylene or the like which can be heat-fused) , wherein the base element (Fig. 12 spout 2) is sealed on the package side in its interior in the unopened state (Seki, Fig. 12 cap mounting surface 32 and Fig. 3 container main body 3 [0020] In order to fuse the fusion piece 23 and the container main body 3, this mouth is made of polyethylene or the like which can be heat-fused), wherein the opening element (Seki, Fig. 12 spout ring 44)comprises an opening element (Seki, Fig. 12 spout ring 44 ) arranged unopen stated (Seki, Fig. 3 ) in the interior of the base element (Seki, Fig. 12 spout 2 ) and connected (Seki, para 20 […] the mouth 2 and the spout closing part 4 are integrally formed. The mouth 2 and the spout closure 4 are connected by a thin fragile line 43.) thereto in a material-bonded manner (Seki, Fig. 12 annular thin fragile line 43) , which is arranged in the interior of the screw cap (Seki, Fig. 12 cap 1) and is connected thereto in a materially-bonded manner (Seki, Para 20-22), and wherein the opening element (Seki, Fig. 12 spout ring 44 )is connected to the at least one force transfer element in a materially-bonded manner (Seki, Para 20-22).
Regarding claim 25, Edie as modified discloses the opening element (Seki, Fig. 12 spout ring 44) is no longer connected (Fig. 12 annular thin fragile line 43 [0025] ) to the base element (Fig. 12 spout 2 ) in a materially-bonded manner (Para 20 Moreover, the mouth 2 and the spout closing part 4 are integrally formed. The mouth 2 and the spout closure 4 are connected by a thin fragile line 43.) after the initial opening of the pouring element ( Fig. 4 ).
Regarding claim 26, Edie as modified disclose the opening element (Fig. 12 spout ring
44) protrudes (Fig. 4 shows spout ring 44 protruding from the screw cap 1) at least partially from the interior of the screw cap in the pivoted-open state (Fig. 4) .
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edie-Seki-Kwon- Ott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bassi (US 11697534).
Regarding claim 5; Edie as modified does not appear to discloses wherein the lower end of the hinge element protrudes downwards over the lower end of the upper parts of the anchor ring in the direction of the fastening flange in the unopened state of the pouring element.
Bassi is in the field of endeavor and discloses a hinge (308) discloses wherein the lower end of the hinge element (38) protrudes downwards over the lower end of the upper parts (306,307) of the anchor ring (301) in the direction of the fastening flange in the unopened state of the pouring element (Fig. 2).
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 Edie to incorporate the lower end of the hinge element protrudes downwards over the lower end of the upper parts of the anchor ring in the direction of the fastening flange in the unopened state of the pouring element for the purpose of locking the hinge element within the lower part of the anchor ring.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Edie-Seki-Kwon-Ott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KWON (WO 2009048273)Fig. 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Edie as modified does not teach wherein ribs protruding outwards in the direction of the anchor ring and extending perpendicular to the fastening flange are provided on the base element below the collar and the anchor ring in relation to the base element.
Kwon Fig. 13 teaches wherein ribs (Fig. 13 extended part 14L between the support ring seats
14) protruding outwards in the direction of the anchor ring (Fig. 13 support ring 33) and extending
perpendicular to the fastening flange (Fig. 13 support step 15) are provided on the base element (Fig. 13 neck of container body 10) below the collar (Fig. 13 ring stopping step 13) and the anchor ring (Fig. 13
support ring 33) in relation to the base element (Fig. 13 neck of container body 10).
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Kwon Fig. 13 to
include ribs protruding outwards in the direction of the anchor ring and extending perpendicular to the fastening flange are provided on the base element below the collar and the anchor ring in relation to the base element for the purpose of prevent the removal of the support ring in cooperation with the ring stopping step 13 (para 72) and reduce material used by not having a constant band.
Claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edie (US 20190375555) in view of Seki (JP 2013107673), KWON (WO 2009048273) and Rigling (US 20080210745).
Regarding claim 1, Edie discloses, A resealable pouring element for cardboard/plastic composite packages, the resealable pouring element comprising a base element (See annotated fig. below) having external thread (136), a screw cap (Fig. 2A; 12 and 14) with internal thread (30) , wherein an anchor ring (18) is arranged below the screw cap (Fig. 2A), is connected thereto in a rotationally-fixed manner and is connected to the base element so as to be radially freely rotatable around the base element (web as annotated has a smooth surface as shown in fig. 2b and thereby is able to rotate around the base) and in a tension-resistant manner in the axial direction, in that, to securely fasten the screw cap to the base element even in the unscrewed state, the anchor ring is connected to the screw cap in a hinged manner via a hinge element (32), whose pivot axis is aligned tangentially to the outer circumference of the screw cap (Fig. 2A, 4), a pour opening (See annotated fig. below) is created inside the pouring element, in that the base element has an outwardly protruding and circumferential collar (See annotated fig. below) on its outer side, in that the anchor ring has at its lower end a circumferential web (See annotated fig. below), which is directed towards the base element and which is arranged below the collar, in order to prevent the anchor ring from being pulled off over the collar, in that the collar is arranged in the unopened state in the axial direction in the upper region of the anchor ring such that when the screw cap is unscrewed, a movement of the hinge element in the axial direction is possible until the web comes into contact with the collar and in that (there is a clear gap between the web and the collar which would allow for vertical movement of the cap until the web hits the collar; Fig. 3B), when the screw cap is pivoted away, the pivot axis of the hinge element is arranged in the axial direction in the upper half of the base element.
PNG
media_image1.png
225
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Edie does not explicitly disclose, a base element having a circumferential fastening flange and with opening element arranged at least in an unopened state of the resealable pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer
Seki is in the field of endeavor and discloses a base element (Fig. 12; 2) having a circumferential fastening flange (Fig. 3, fusion piece 23) and with opening element (fig. 12; 44) arranged at least an unopened state (Fig. 12) of the resealable pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer (4).
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 Edie to incorporate a base element having a circumferential fastening flange so that it can be attached to varieties of bottle/container via fuse piece and with opening element arranged at least in the unopened state of the pouring element in the interior of the base element and a barrier layer as taught by Seki for the purpose of having additional seal to prevent any leakage.
Edie as modified does not explicitly disclose, the anchor ring has a slot running in the circumferential direction, which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts and a lower part, wherein the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction.
KWON is in the field of endeavor and discloses, an anchor ring (fig. 3; 33) has a slot (fig. 3; 34) running in the circumferential direction which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts (See annotated fig. below) and a lower part (See annotated fig. below)where the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
318
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Edie to incorporate an anchor ring that has a slot running in the circumferential direction, which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts and a lower part, wherein the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction as taught by KWON for the purpose allowing the user to increase the length of the hinge as needed.
The combination does not teach the opening element comprised a cutting
element arranged in the interior of the base element and at least one driver web arranged in the interior of the screw cap and connected thereto in a form-fitting or material-bonded manner.
Rigling teaches a reclosable pouring element for composite cardboard/plastic packaging
with a cutting piece and tamper evident pieces. Rigling further teaches the opening element Fig. 1
piercing element 2 comprised a cutting element Fig. 1 circularly arranged teeth 13 arranged in the
interior of the base element Fig. 1 frame element 1 and at least one driver web Fig. 1 inner-lying force
transfer means 17 arranged in the interior of the screw cap Fig. 1 screw cap 3 and connected thereto in a form-fitting or material-bonded manner [0035].
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Rigling to include inner-lying transfer means to the screw cap and a frame element with teeth to aid in opening via the annular thin fragile line 43 by piercing it upon opening via force as shown by the inner lying transfer means 17 to the screw cap 3 and a frame element 1 with teeth 13 to piece the 8 for additional aid in opening the container to pour the contents.
The limitation “wherein the opening element are designed such that a pour opening is created inside the resealable pouring element when the opening element is opened” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Edie as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Herein, a pour opening would be crated when the opening element is opened.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination teaches wherein the at least one driver web Fig. 1 inner lying force transfer means 17 '745 is in each case arranged as far as possible away Fig. 1 shows the
inner laying force transfer means 17 in the middle of the cap 1 away from the sidewalls of the cap 3
inside the circle diameter of 3/4ths of the cap diameter '745 from the hinged element Fig. 3 hinged part 35 in the circumferential direction.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination does not teach wherein at least one tamper-evident seal
is arranged between the fastening flange and the anchor ring or the screw cap.
Rigling teaches a reclosable pouring element for composite cardboard/plastic packaging
with a cutting piece and tamper evident pieces. Rigling further teaches wherein at least one tamper evident seal Fig. 5 connecting bridges 19 and plate 18 is arranged between the fastening flange Fig. 5
flange 5 and the screw cap Fig. 5 screw cap 3.
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Rigling to include at least one tamper-evident seal is arranged between the fastening flange and the anchor ring or the screw cap to create an additional tamper evident feature visibly identifying if the container and cap have been open as shown by the plate 18 that connects to the screw cap 3 via connecting bridges 19 and the plate 18 is secured into the flange 5.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Edie-Seki-Kwon- Rigling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon KWON (WO 2009048273) Fig. 33-34.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination does not teach wherein another ring is arranged below
the anchor ring and is connected to the anchor ring via a plurality of material bridges and serves as a
tamper-evident seal.
Kwon Fig. 33-34 teaches wherein another ring is arranged below the anchor ring and is
connected to the anchor ring via a plurality of material bridges and serves as a tamper-evident seal Fig.
33-34 indication ring 39 attached to support ring 33 via plurality of bridges 37 [0070,0075].
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 combination to incorporate the teachings of Kwon Fig. 33-34 to include an indication ring below support ring 33 via a plurality of bridges as additional indication
structure to visible display tampering of the cap before opening the container as shown by the indication ring 39 attached to support ring 33 via plurality of bridges 37 of fig. 33-34 of Kwon.
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches wherein the ring Fig. 33-34 indication ring 39
can only be twisted [0075] to a limited extent by blocking webs Fig. 33 annotated protruding inwards
from the ring Fig. 33-34 indication ring 39 with locking elements arranged over the circumference of the
base element Fig. 33 annotated such that it is released Fig. 34 from the anchor ring Fig. 33-34 support
ring 33 when the screw cap Fig. 33-34 cap 1 is unscrewed initially by tearing off the material bridges
Fig. 33-34 plurality of bridges 37 and remain in its position Fig. 34 on the base element Fig. 34 neck of
container 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
219
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches wherein the base element Fig. 12 spout 2 '673
has an outwardly protruding and circumferential collar Fig. 33 annotated on its outer side,
wherein the clear inner diameter of the collar is smaller than the clear distance between the webs of the
ring arranged opposite in each case Fig. 33 shows that the annotated blocking webs fit under the
annotated collar but stops at the outside of the container 10, and the inner diameter of the collar is
the inside of the container 10.
PNG
media_image4.png
467
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument filled on 03/13/2026 has been fully considered but not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Edie or Seki fails to disclose “the anchor ring has a slot running in the circumferential direction, which separates the anchor ring in a section into upper parts and a lower part, wherein the upper parts and the lower part are arranged spaced apart from one another in the axial direction,” to that the examiner replies that this limitation is disclosed by prior art KWON and utilized in the current rejection and with regards to the limitation “the opening element comprises a cutting element arranged in the interior of the base element and at least one driver web arranged in the interior of the screw cap and connected thereto in a form-fitting or materially-bonded manner.” prior art of Ott or Rigling both discloses this limitation. The claim limitation requires an opening element arranged at least in an unopened state of the resealable pouring element in the interior of the base element which is disclosed by prior art of Seki.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that Edie in view of Seki fails to disclose a screw cap would not an elevated hinge, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Axial height change is done by the slot that is disclosed by KWON and when incorporated into Edie, it will perform the same. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights