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 .
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 at least one ledge comprising a first said ledge and a second said ledge that are adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering of claim 6 and a second said ledge that is adapted to allow a sufficient amount of movement of said sleeve relative to said insert in order to allow for activation of evidence of tampering, adapted to engage said insert to retain said insert in said sleeve during operation of said device, while also being adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering of claim 8 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 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 6 is 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.
The limitation of claim 6 that “said at least one ledge comprises a first said ledge and a second said ledge”, while claim 3 from which claim 6 depends requires that the at least one ledge is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering, leads to indefiniteness. It is unclear if the limitation of claim 3 leads every one of the at least one ledges, which would include both the first said ledge and the second said ledge of claim 6, to be adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering or if the limitation of claim 3 is met when at least one of the ledges, which would be at least one of the first said ledge and second said ledge, is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as the latter. As long as at least one of the first said ledge and second said ledge of the at least one ledges is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering, claim 6 will be considered to be met.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 fails to further limit claim 6 from which it depends as claim 6 already requires that the first said ledge of the at least one ledge is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (TW 200821225) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki (TW 200821225) further in view of リフシー (JP H11513645).
Claim 1: Suzuki discloses a device adapted to provide evidence of tampering with a container, said device comprising: a sleeve; and an insert positioned within said sleeve, said insert comprising a body and a flap, said flap configured to be open when said insert is not positioned in said sleeve [see position of flap in figure 1b with sleeve fully removed], and said flap adapted to be in a closed position when said insert is positioned within said sleeve [see fig. 1a], such that said flap is adapted to move between an open position and said closed position relative to the body; wherein, when said flap is in said closed position, a position of said sleeve relative to said insert is adapted to be changed upward a predetermined amount to try to open a container such that said sleeve is adapted to engage said flap such that said sleeve is adapted to cause said flap to move upwardly relative to said body from said closed position (fig. 1a) to said open position (fig. 1b); and wherein said open position of said flap, after being in said closed position, is adapted to indicate tampering while said insert is positioned within said sleeve [see fig. 1b where the open position of the flap is visible from the side of the insert opposite the sleeve when the device stands alone] (see annotated fig. 1 below).
En arguendo, if applicant disagrees that said open position of said flap, after being in said closed position, is adapted to indicate tampering while said insert is positioned within said sleeve, リフシー teaches a transparent cap 1 attached to a container with a tamper-evident seal 6 on top that breaks when the cap 1 is first rotated (see translation page 4 lines 45-46) and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the sleeve and hinged cap 6 transparent, as taught by リフシー in order to permit a user to check the integrity of the device before turning the sleeve.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein: said sleeve comprises a first end and a second end; said first end defines a first opening in which said insert is positioned; and said second end comprises a wall that extends inwardly from an outside of said sleeve to define a second opening, said second opening configured to allow said device to be positioned over an opening of a container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 3: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein an interior of said sleeve defines at least one ledge that is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 4: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said at least one ledge comprises a ledge that extends completely around said interior of said sleeve (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3a).
Claim 5: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said at least one ledge extends at least partially around said interior of said sleeve (see annotated fig. 1 above and fig. 3a).
Claim 6: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said at least one ledge of said sleeve defines a first said ledge and a second said ledge, wherein the first said ledge is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 7: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said first said ledge is adapted to engage said flap to facilitate indication of tampering (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 8: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein: said second said ledge is adapted to allow a sufficient amount of movement of said sleeve relative to said insert in order to allow for activation of evidence of tampering; and said second said ledge is adapted to engage said insert to retain said insert in said sleeve during operation of said device (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 9: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein: said body of said insert defines an opening that is adapted to be positioned over an opening of a container (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 10: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said flap is rotatably connected to said body (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 11: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said body further comprises at least one prong that is adapted to facilitate positioning and retention of said insert in said sleeve (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 13: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said at least one prong has a portion that protrudes outward such that said at least one prong is adapted to facilitate positioning and retention of said insert in said sleeve (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 14: Suzuki or in the alternative the combination discloses wherein said portion of said at least one prong protrudes outward to facilitate resistance against said insert backing out of said sleeve (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 3 of office action dated 24 October 2024 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 28 January 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 4-6 of office action dated 24 October 2024 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 28 January 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to Randall have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 14 in view of Randall has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments directed to Suzuki filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Suzuki does not teach or suggest a flap wherein, when the flap is in a closed position, a position of a sleeve relative to an insert is adapted to be changed upward a predetermined amount to try to open a container such that the sleeve is adapted to engage the flap such that the sleeve is adapted to cause the flap to move upward relative to the body from the closed position to the open position as the alleged flap 7 is configured to move downward relative to the alleged body from a closed position to an open position when the container is being opened, the Examiner responds while upwards is recited in the claim, no frame of reference has been defined other than “said flap to move upward relative to said body from said closed position to said open position”. When upwards is considered to be from the top of annotated fig. 1 to the bottom of annotated fig. 1 the claimed limitation is met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights