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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16, 21-24 are pending.
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 21 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Last (US 20140010481).
Regarding claim 1, Last discloses, A tamper-evident closure (Fig. 1) for a container, the closure comprising: a cap (20) having a rib (29) with a tab (32) extending from the rib (29), the tab having an inwardly extending lug (33) configured to engage with an outwardly extending projection (16) of a straw (1, fig. 4) as the cap rotates relative to the straw when the cap and the straw are secured together (Fig. 10-12), the lug having a chamfered slidable surface (See annotated fig. below), the tab having a foldable portion configured to fold the lug inwardly (Fig. 12a-d; Para 137-138),relative to a central axis of the straw, to provide a visual indication when the cap is an unsealed configuration(Fig. 12a-d; Para 137-138).
The limitation “configured to slide on the projections when the cap is in the unsealed configuration” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the chamfered surface as annotated is capable of sliding on 16 as shown in fig. 11, and 12 in unsealed configuration. When opening, the bridge 36 will break and chamfered surface as annotated will be capable of sliding on the cap.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Last discloses, the tab includes a break segment (36, fig. 11; para 137) configured to break when a threshold force is applied to transition the closure from a sealed configuration to an unsealed configuration(36, fig. 11; para 137, 138).
Regarding claim 3, Last discloses, wherein the cap has a plurality of ribs (29),wherein the tab extends from a first rib to a second rib (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Last discloses, the cap has a plurality of ribs (29),wherein the tab (32) extends across a first rib (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
469
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Last discloses the cap includes an outer shell (See annotated fig. below)) having gripping features; and an inner cap body.
PNG
media_image4.png
469
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Last discloses, the inner cap body includes internal threads(23) configured to engage with external threads on the straw (para 126).
Regarding claim 8, Last discloses, the slidable surface (fig. 10, 11; underside of 33; as annotated in claim 1)
The limitation “configured to slide on the projections without re-engaging the projection.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, once the seal is broken , the lug would no longer reengage with the projection.
Regarding claim 21, Last discloses, A tamper-evident closure (Fig. 1) for a container, the closure comprising: a cap (20) having a rib (29) with a tab (32) extending from the rib (29), the tab having an inwardly extending lug (33) configured to engage with an outwardly extending projection (16) of a straw (1, fig. 4) as the cap rotates relative to the straw when the cap and the straw are secured together (Fig. 10-12), the lug having a chamfered slidable surface (See annotated fig. below), the tab having a foldable portion configured to fold the lug inwardly (Fig. 12a-d; Para 137-138) in a horizontal direction to provide a visual indication when the cap is an unsealed configuration (Fig. 12a-d; Para 137-138).
The limitation “configured to slide on the projections when the cap is in the unsealed configuration” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the chamfered surface as annotated is capable of sliding on 16 as shown in fig. 11, and 12 in unsealed configuration. When opening, the bridge 36 will break and chamfered surface as annotated will be capable of sliding on the cap.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Last discloses, the tab includes a break segment (36, fig. 11; para 137) configured to break when a threshold force is applied to transition the closure from a sealed configuration to an unsealed configuration(36, fig. 11; para 137, 138).
Regarding claim 23, Last discloses, wherein the cap has a plurality of ribs (29),wherein the tab extends from a first rib to a second rib (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Last discloses, the cap has a plurality of ribs (29),wherein the tab (32) extends across a first rib (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
469
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last (US 20140010481).
Regarding claim 7, Last discloses, a height of the outer shell is larger than a height of a plurality of tabs (Fig. 8) but does not disclose, a ratio of a maximum height of the outer shell to a height of one of the plurality of tabs is less than or equal to 6:1.
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 Last to have a ratio of a maximum height of the outer shell to a height of one of the plurality of tabs is less than or equal to 6:1 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. This is done for the purpose of providing an optimum size to enable a threshold force for opening the closure so that the closure does not unseal unintentionally while being in transit or during assembly. See MPEP 2144.05(II-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 regarding rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Last fails to disclose “chamfered slidable surface”. However prior art of Last as annotated shows a chamfered slidable surface. The applicant further argues that Last fails to disclose or suggest structure that slides on the projection in unsealed configuration, to that the examiner respectfully disagrees. Once the bridge 30 is broken as shown in fig. 12, the lug 33 along with chamfer slidable surface slides over the projection 16. This can be done in the unsealed/open configuration once the breakable bridge is broken.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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