DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All objections and 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 in response to Office Actions 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the axial projections of secondary prior art Terumo never elastically deform (page 2 para 1). Applicant also argues that the axial projections are not in a peripheral groove (page 2 para 2). Examiner disagrees. Please see a detailed analysis in the new grounds of rejection below, especially since Applicant does not argue the amendment making the axial projections to be in the peripheral groove “before assembly”, which is a narrowing change in scope necessitating said new grounds.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1, 3-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pub 20110000872 by Aneas (hereinafter “Aneas”) in view of BE 895575 issued to Terumo Europe (hereinafter “Terumo”).
Regarding claim 1, Aneas teaches a device for closing a fluid product reservoir (Fig 1, a stopper device 1), comprising:
a plug (Fig 1 and Abstract, an elastomer stopper 2 comprises a cap/plug 4),
a fixing ring to hold said plug on said reservoir (Fig 3, a fixing ring 11 holds 2 on a container reservoir B, Fig 1), said fixing ring comprising a cylindrical structure comprising wall parts separated by lateral windows (Fig 3, at least four wall parts 20 form a cylindrical structure with respective lateral windows between each wall), each wall part comprising at least one inner radial projection to hold said plug in said fixing ring (Figures 1-2, each 20 comprises a portion of a peripheral inwardly radially projecting band 19 that is shown capable of holding 2 in 11), each lateral window comprising a lower edge provided with at least one rigid lug extending radially inwards from said lower edge (Fig 1, each window comprises a rigid locking catch lug 21 extending from a lower edge of each window radially inward toward the container central axis), said rigid lugs, in a blocking position of said fixing ring, being arranged under a neck of said reservoir, to thus fix said fixing ring on said reservoir (Fig 6 shows a blocking position of 11 (i.e. blocking said cap from removal, sealing B) wherein locking lug 21 is under a neck C of B thereby fixing 11 on B),
a blocking cover comprising a cylindrical wall and an upper wall (Fig 3, a cover 10 comprising a cylindrical wall and an upper wall), said blocking cover being arranged around said fixing ring, to lock said fixing ring in the blocking position of said fixing ring (Fig 6, 10 is around 11 thereby locking 11 in the blocking position), wherein
an upper surface of said plug comprises, before assembly, a deformation profile which engages, after assembly, with said fixing ring (Fig 6, an upper surface of said cap 2 comprises a profile defining the topmost surface of cap 2 (i.e. the topmost contour line of 2 in cross-section is the profile), that is shown to be capable of deforming during engagement after assembly of ring 11 with cap 2; wherein the profile exists before deforming from assembly); wherein
said deformation profile (see examiner annotated Aneas Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFA6”; EAFA6, deformation profile/groove, wherein groove is shown as a cross section portion of a whole circle (Fig 3), therefore the groove extends along the whole periphery of the circle (i.e. concentric circles)) comprises, a peripheral groove (EAFA6, groove), said peripheral groove extending along the whole periphery (EAFA6,).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly teach a peripheral groove with axial projections inside, before assembly.
Terumo, however, teaches a similar plug having a deformation profile (Fig 2 shows a deformation profile of deforming 8’s; page 2 lines third and fourth from last, “7 (Fig 1) [is] an elastically pierceable material… This also applies to the head 6 of the elastic stop 3 (Fig 2)”, wherein 3, 6 and 7 are all shown as one piece with 8) comprising, before assembly, a peripheral groove provided with a plurality of elastically deformable axial projections, said peripheral groove extending along the whole periphery, and said elastically deformable axial projections located inside said peripheral groove (see examiner annotated Terumo Figures 3-4, hereinafter “EAFT34”; EAFT34, shown unassembled, a peripheral groove extending along the whole periphery (i.e. a circle) includes elastically deformable axial projections 8 inside; wherein Figs 2-3, axial projections 8 all along the whole periphery of the circle, shaped as shown “pointed”; or like Applicant Figure 2, 8 are shaped as “ribs” of “triangular cross section” (Terumo page 2, line 17 from bottom) with “channels” between their “substantially parallel” (Terumo page 2, lines 22-23 from bottom) relative alignment to each other); and Figs 1 & 4, projections 8 are shown having a jagged profile in an area).
PNG
media_image2.png
649
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 the deformation profile, having an after assembly groove, of Aneas to also be a before assembly groove having elastically deformable axial projections inside as taught by Terumo in order to advantageously enhance reduction of the suction cup effect upon removal of the closure to beneficially increase ease of removal (Terumo, page 2, line 12 from bottom) for a more diverse range of users, simultaneously enhancing the same function of Aneas to avoid suction cup effect (Aneas, [0046] “avoid a suction cup effect”) as the deformation profile of Aneas is created by groove projections contact.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the before-assembly whole periphery extending groove with the projections inside of Terumo aligned with and replacing the whole periphery extending after-assembly groove of the deformation profile of Aneas in order to achieve the advantage above.
Regarding claim 3, Aneas further teaches said upper wall of said blocking cover (Fig 3, the upper wall of 10) comprises flexible wall parts, separated by radial grooves (Figures 1 and 3, [0011], a connecting web 33 “is elastically deformable” of the upper wall comprises multiple elastically deformable wall parts separated by topmost radial grooves (also seen in Figure 8 perspective view of 33 unchanged) and vents 35 radial grooves).
Regarding claim 4, Aneas further teaches said plug (2) is a freeze-drying plug ([0012] the invention stoppers containers that “exit from the freeze drier” from being in the freeze drier, thereby capable of being a freeze-drying type plug), said fixing ring being movable on the neck between a freeze-drying position, wherein the plug does not close said neck in a sealed manner, and closing position, wherein said plug closes said neck in a sealed manner, said blocking cover being movable on said fixing ring between a freeze-drying position and closing position, thereby locking said fixing ring in the closing position (Figures 1 and 4-6 show a reversible blocking move of said the ring 11 and the cover 10 between a freeze-drying position and the blocking position; Figure 1, said cap is in an unsealed non-blocking position with the neck thereby capable of having the contents freeze dried (e.g. [0003] [0041] background explanation), and Figure 6 shows said locking blocking position of cover 10 with 11).
Regarding claim 5, Aneas further teaches each wall part (Fig 1, the at least four wall parts 20) of said fixing ring (11) comprises at least one first outer radial projection (Fig 2, [0038], at least four first outer radial projections 25 outward from the central container axis and 20) and at least one second outer radial projection (Fig 2, a second outer radial projection of 22 (directly above 23 and below 25)), said first and second outer radial projections being axially offset from one another (Fig 1 shows 25 axially offset upwards from 23).
Regarding claim 6, Aneas further teaches said blocking cover (10) comprises in its cylindrical wall at least one inner radial profile, which, in the freeze-drying position, is wedged between said first and second outer radial projections of said fixing ring (Fig 2, an interior radial profile contour line at the bottommost edge of 10 is shown wedged between the first and second projections (i.e. said profile forms a “wedged” secure engagement by contact), in the freeze-drying position of Figures 1 and 2, [0041]), to thus hold said blocking cover in its freeze-drying position on said fixing ring (said freeze-drying position).
Regarding claim 7, Aneas further teaches said cylindrical structure of said fixing ring (11) comprises an axially lower edge (Fig 2, an axially lower edge of 11 below 21 shared by each wall part) comprising profiles projecting radially inwards (Fig 2, said edge comprises profiles shown projecting radially inward), which, in the freeze-drying position, are arranged under the neck of said reservoir to hold said fixing ring on said reservoir in the freeze-drying position (Fig 4, said profiles of said lower edge are under neck C in the freeze-drying position; [0041] freeze-drying position Fig 1, [0030] Fig 1 shows a raised position, [0033] Fig 4 also shows the raised position).
Regarding claim 8, Aneas further teaches said lower edge of each lateral window (Fig 2, each said window of 11) comprises an outer radial profile extending radially outwards from said lower edge (Fig 2, an outer radial profile 23 of the window extends radially outward at and from the lower edge), said blocking cover (10) comprising in its cylindrical wall at least one inner radial profile (Fig 2, an interior radial profile contour line at the bottommost edge of 10), such that in the blocking position of said blocking cover (Fig 6), said at least one inner radial profile is snap-fitted under said outer radial profiles of the fixing ring, to hold said blocking cover on said fixing ring in its blocking position (Fig 6, said inner profile is fit under 23 and necessarily is capable of being a snap type fit given the shown shape and said inner profile being an elastically deformable portion of 10, [0011]).
Regarding claim 9, Aneas further teaches in the freeze-drying position, an exchange surface between the inside and outside of said reservoir (Fig 1, an exchange surface between the inside and outside of the reservoir defining product communication to the outside atmosphere).
But does not explicitly teach the exchange surface area is greater than 50 mm2 or 80 mm2.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at an exchange surface area of greater than 50 mm2 or 80 mm2, recognizing that increased exchange surface area is directly correlated to increased freeze-drying speed, versus decreased lifespan of the product from exposure and increased user risk, in order to increase freeze drying speed which saves cost on duration of powering freeze drying, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Regarding claim 10, Aneas further teaches said fixing ring (11) comprises a substantially flat upper plate (Fig 2, a substantially flat upper plate 17) comprising a central opening (Fig 2, 18), said blocking cover (10) comprising an upper wall defining a central passage (Fig 2, a central axial bore passage 14 in an upper wall of 10) aligned with said central opening of said fixing ring (aligned along axis “delta” in Figure 2), said device comprising a removable patch fixed on the outer surface of said upper wall of said blocking cover, to close said central passage (Fig 2, [0039] “it [30] is removed”, a removable cap patch 30 closes said passage).
Regarding claim 11, Aneas further teaches said removable patch comprises foldable tabs adapted to be folded under an edge of said central passage (Fig 2, said patch 30, [0011], is of elastically deformable material, and shows tabs capable of being folded under a top edge of said passage; in other words, Fig 6, tabs shown within the passage under an edge of the passage are compressed beneath that edge, therefore shown foldable).
Regarding claim 12, Aneas further teaches said device has no silicone (silicone is not taught).
Regarding claim 13, Aneas further teaches said device has no metal (metal is not taught).
Regarding claim 17, Aneas further teaches said peripheral groove extends along a closed circle and opens in an axial direction of the plug (shown in Fig 8, as described in parent claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Aneas/Terumo further teaches said deformation profile has a ring shape and said elastically deformable axial projections define a profile area that is jagged (EAFA6 & Fig 3, the profile is a ring/circular shape (whole circle), and in Terumo Figs 1 & 4, projections 8 are shown having a jagged profile in an area). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19, Aneas/Terumo further teaches said elastically deformable axial projections extend in a radial pattern with elastically deformable axial projections extending radially relative to a center of the disk shape of the deformation profile within said peripheral groove (because the projections of Terumo are in the deformation profile (which is circular) of Aneas, the projections are in a radial pattern relative to center. Also Terumo shows each projection 8 extends radially along its radius from center (i.e. width) as well as distributing them radially). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110000872 by Aneas (hereinafter “Aneas”) in view of BE 895575 issued to Terumo Europe (hereinafter “Terumo”) in view of US Pat 10144560 issued to Mutterle (hereinafter “Mutterle”).
Regarding claim 14, Aneas/Terumo does not explicitly teach a cap coating.
Mutterle, however, teaches a similar plug with blocking device (Fig 2) comprising:
a coating on an inner surface rotated inwards from said reservoir, said coating comprising an ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) film, in order to limit the interactions between said plug and said fluid product (Fig 7, col 9, lines 40-48, cap 200 is Teflon coated (poly tetrafluoroethylene) including on its inner surface that is angled/rotated inward toward the central axis away from the reservoir, that is necessarily capable of limiting interactions between product and cap).
The purpose of a cap coating is to reduce product residue. 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 cap of Aneas with a coating as taught by Mutterle in order to advantageously reduce residue retained on the cap by the reservoir product, thereby improving protection of the user and reducing waste of said product.
But Aneas/Mutterle does not explicitly teach a specific coating material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Mutterle before them at the time the application was filed, to have chosen (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) ETFE material for the coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known [as evidenced by Mutterle’s tetrafluoroethylene, see above] material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
JP 5566765 - "convex portions for compression" projections 29 are inside a whole periphery peripheral groove formed by annular portion 35 (Fig 13)
US 5803284 - elastically deformable axial projections 144 in a radial pattern are inside a peripheral groove defined by pocket 131 (Fig 2A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights