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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Limatibul (US 2018/0345628 A1) teaching a resin composite of only cyclic olefin copolymer and polyethylene resin as evidenced in the rejection below.
Applicant's additional arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references do not teach the exact same proportions as claimed. However, Federal Circuit has held that, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05(I) (discussing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular proportion of components. A review of the Applicant’s specification as recited in para. 33 and 35 teaches the proportions disclosed by Suzuki to be adequate proportions for the Applicant’s invention and then continuing to give an assortment of other proportions that are also adequate.
In response to applicant's argument that placing the tapered lower end of Kemeny on Nagao would render the device inoperable or require substantial redesign, 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). Here, providing a tapering at the lower requires nothing more then removing a little resin composite material at the lower end from the outer wall, such procedures are commonplace and can be done without leaving the rest of the device inoperable. In particular, such a modification leaves the rest of the sidewall of the plug untouched to maintain it’s seal with the wall of the container. Further, the court held that the configuration of the claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1), and further in view of Limatibul (US 2018/0345628 A1) and Kemeny et al. (US 2022/0017255 A1).
Re: Claim 1, Nagao discloses the claimed invention including an inner plug (10) to be mounted in an opening part of a container body (2) and constituting a nozzle (11A) (Figs. 1a-1b),
wherein the inner plug comprises a leg part that comes into contact with an inner surface of the opening part (Depicted in Figs. 1a-b) except for a tapering in the lower end of the leg part. However, Kemeny teaches a leg part (14) has a lower end portion (15) that is tapered towards a longitudinal axis of the inner plug (Fig. 6, Para. 129, tapers toward axis).
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a tapered lower end as taught by Kemeny, since Kemeny states in paragraph 129 that such a modification facilitates easier insertion.
wherein the inner plug is integrally molded and consists of a resin composite consisting of an olefin copolymer and a polyethylene resin (Para. 58-59, polyethylene resin and a cyclic olefin copolymer), except for expressly stating a cyclic olefin copolymer with the claimed proportion. However, Limatibul teaches a plug (Fig. 4) with a resin composite (Para. 69, polyethylene resin) including at least one of a copolymer of cyclic olefins different from each other (COP) (Limatibul: Para. 69, cyclic olefin copolymer); and a proportion of the cyclic olefin copolymer in 100 parts by weight of the resin composite is 40 to 60 parts by weight (Limatibul: Para. 69, 35 parts by weight cyclic olefin copolymer), a proportion of the polyethylene resin is 40 to 60 parts by weight (Para. 66, 50-60 parts by weight polyethylene resin), and a total amount of the cyclic olefin copolymer and the polyethylene resin is a 100 parts by weight (Para. 69 only COP and PE make up all parts of the material totaling 100 parts).
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use the claimed proportion as taught by Limatibul, since Limatibul; states in paragraph 57 that such a modification improves barrier properties preventing ingress of outside moisture and gas, and further it is known in the art that such compounds enhance the mechanical properties of the plug structure such as increasing tensile modulus providing better strength, rigidity and durability. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05(I) (discussing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Re: Claim 2, Nagao discloses the claimed invention including the inner plug has a flange part which comes into contact with a tip surface of the opening part (Depicted in Figs. 1a-1b).
Re: Claim 3, Nagao discloses the claimed invention including the nozzle has a nozzle hole penetrating the inner plug (Depicted in Figs. 1a-1b).
Re: Claim 6, Nagao discloses the claimed invention including the inner plug according to claim 1; and a container body (2) that has an opening part in which the inner plug is mounted (Figs. 1a-1b).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2018/0042766 A1), Kemeny et al. (US 2022/0017255 A1), and Limatibul (US 2018/0345628 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wurtzel (US 2011/0215007 A1).
Re: Claim 7, Nagao discloses the claimed invention except for the container having a COC layer. However, Wurtzel discloses the container body has a layer (22) including a cyclic olefin copolymer on at least a surface in contact with a liquid content (Figs. 1a-1b, Para. 37, COC layer).
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use a COC layer within the container as taught by Wurtzel, since Wurtzel states in paragraph 11 and COC is known for providing a high purity, anti-moisture, non-reactive, and sterilized buffer in intimate contact or near intimate contact with any product within the interior volume of the container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 teach container components made of composite resins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754