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 .
Response to Arguments
All 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 in response to Office Action 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that a POSITA would not come to the claimed invention given all the prior art combined as cited (page 10, first half). Applicant asks how construction is actually achieved. However, examiner points out that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton. MPEP 2141.03 I. Examiner points out that a proper 35 USC 103 has a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”, and that is provided in the detailed analysis of the rejection below. MPEP 2143.01 I.
Applicant also argues that primary prior art Li does not show the upper separating strip 5 to be above (limitation is “passes over”) the bottle neck pilfer-proof ring, stating that the “only” reasonable inference is from their annotated Li Figure (page 10, last half to page 11, first half). Examiner disagrees since in the original figure the lead line of 5 points directly to a point above the pilferproof ring. Put another way, bands 6 are shown ending above the pilferproof ring, and 5 is above the bands 6 at that end, so 5 cannot be anything less than at least partially above the ring, thereby passes over (further evidenced in STIC Translation, 7 pages 11/12/2025 NPL, Li claim 3 “drawstring (6) connected to the thick ties (5) as a whole.”).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that a POSITA would not abandon secondary prior art Benoit-Gonin’s structure (bands/arms) to achieve “stabilized opening”, but admits replacing it could work though “complicated” (page 12, first half). However, that means Applicant is doing their own unrelated construction, so examiner cannot respond. Also, Li is the primary so arguing Benoit-Gonin is a piecemeal analysis. And simplicity is a nonfactor in the instant application. MPEP 2143.01 V.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant agrees that the upper separating strip of Benoit-Gonin tongue 21 does twist because it is a “folding-over of a tongue 21” (as in claim 1), then states that 21 is not the upper separating strip claimed because of 21’s surrounding elements (page 12, para last, first and third sentence). Examiner points out that Li teaches the upper separating strip, so the argument is piecemeal analysis. Examiner notes that the citation in the Office Action reads “Benoit-Gonin teaches…upper separating strip 21”, but clarifies that the construction as reasoned in the motivation to combine simply uses the upper separating strip 21 as a concept, since Li already teaches the upper separating strip structure. 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).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Applicant argues that the instant claims do not read on Benoit-Gonin’s abstract (page 11, para last). However since there are no citations argued over the claims, examiner cannot respond.
Regarding claim 15 (and amended claim 1), Applicant argues that the bands 4 of Benoit-Gonin do not “twist” as claimed because only hinges 5 are shown twisted (page 12, para last, second and last sentence). Examiner points out this is a piecemeal analysis of features not cited. Li reads on the bands twisting.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102700822 issued to Li (hereinafter “Li”) in view of US Pub 20090302037 by Rigling (hereinafter “Rigling”) in further view of US Pat 6474491 issued to Benoit-Gonin et al. (hereinafter “Benoit-Gonin”) in view of US Pub 20130043260 by Barron (hereinafter “Barron”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a closure (Fig 1, cap 1) comprising:
a screw cap (Fig 2, threads of 1 shown) with a tamper-evident band (Fig 1, ring 2), the closure having at least one cylindrical cap skirt (Fig 1, a skirt body of 1) having a female thread (said cap threads) and the tamper-evident band extending peripherally at the lower open end of the cap skirt (said ring 2 peripherally extends and is at the lower open end of the cap skirt),
the tamper-evident band being connected along easily tearable weakening lines (Fig 1, lines 3 and 4) to the lower rim of the cap skirt (2 connects with a lower rim of the cap skirt through the lines), wherein
after tearing along the weakening lines the tamper-evident band remains non-detachably connected to the cap skirt by way of holding bands (Fig 2, belt bands 6 formed by the lines keep 2 non-detachably connected to the cap skirt of 1 after tearing the lines),
a cylindrical pouring spout portion (Fig 2, cylindrical container spout shown), the cylindrical pouring spout portion having a central axis (cylindrical means it necessarily has a central axis),
the pouring spout portion having an upper outer and a lower inner opening (Fig 2 shows an upper outer and lower inner opening within the spout defining the interior of the spout), wherein the female thread of the screw cap can be screwed onto a male thread on the pouring spout portion (Fig 2 shows the female thread screwed to a spout male thread), wherein
the holding bands (Fig 1, both 6) are formed by an upper weakening line and a lower weakening line (formed by an upper weakening line 3 and a lower weakening line 4), the upper weakening line and the lower weakening line being respectively interrupted at least once in the peripheral direction by an upper separating strip and a lower separating strip, respectively (Fig 2, 5 interrupts 3, and a lower portion to the left from viewer perspective interrupts 4), the upper weakening line and the lower weakening line partially overlapping in the peripheral direction (Fig 1 shows partial overlap of the lines in the peripheral direction), the upper weakening line and the lower weakening line extending at an axial spacing relative to each other at least in an overlap region (Fig 1 shows an axial spacing between the lines within a region proximal to the overlap), wherein the
separating strips of the upper weakening line and the lower weakening line (Fig 1, the upper interrupting strip 5 and the lower interrupting strip) are bridged by the respective other weakening line at an axial spacing (Fig 1 the weakening lines are shown bridged over the respective other), wherein
a closure lower part has a pilferproof ring having a ridge formed thereon, the pilferproof ring having a region of maximum diameter at the ridge, wherein the female thread of the screw cap can be screwed onto a male thread on the pouring spout portion (see examiner annotated Li Figure 2, hereinafter “EAFL2”; EAFL2, max diameter ridge is of a pilferproof ring; threads),
the upper separating strip forms an axial extension of the cap skirt (Fig 1, 5 is shown as an axial extension of the cap skirt), and as the cap is rotated on the closure lower part, the upper separating strip passes over the ridge on the pilferproof ring (EAFL2, pass is during rotation of cap on closure lower part), wherein
upon rotating the screw cap, the holding bands are twisted (EAFL2, bands 6 are not shown twisted, but necessarily are due to cap rotation; “drawstring (6) connected to the thick ties (5) as a whole”, Li claim 3, Fig 1; and 5 is “integrally formed” between the cover 1 and ring 3 and 6 (i.e. together with in one mold), Abstract, NPL Translation 7 pages 11/12/2025. Meaning that since 5 is formed with 1 and in between bands 6, 6 at least partially twists when 5 rotates with 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
428
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Li does not explicitly teach a flange and a cutting ring for a carton container.
Rigling, however, teaches a similar screw cap closure (Fig 1, 2 and 3) for a carton pack (Title, packaging (i.e. of carton type)) with a spout (Fig 1, 1) comprising:
wherein the closure has a closure lower part (Fig 1, lower part of 3) having a peripherally extending flange (Fig 1, assembly of 18, 19 and 20 extends peripherally from said lower part), the peripherally extending flange being connectable to the surface of a carton pack (Fig 1, said assembly shown connectable to surface at 20) in sealed relationship ([0039] tamper-proof seal of the closure is capable of a sealing relationship when the closure is connected to the carton pack through the flange) and
the pouring spout portion adjoining the flange (Fig 1, 1 adjoins the flange assembly),
wherein the closure has a cutting ring arranged in the pouring spout portion (Fig 1, 2), the cutting ring having at its lower rim at least one axially inwardly projecting cutting edge (Fig 1, 13 is an axially inwardly projecting cutting edge at the lower rim of 2),
wherein the closure has an axial lift and entrainment device on the cutting ring and the screw cap (Fig 1, 14 with 17 entrains and is capable of axial lift of 3), the axial lift and entrainment device including an entrainment means mounted at the inside of the screw cap (17 is mounted inside of 3) and
an axial lift device (Fig 1, 14 on 2) which upon rotation of the screw cap in the opening direction moves the cutting ring axially in the direction of the lower opening and in the peripheral direction and thereby produces an at least partially circularly extending cut in the container surface ([0035] first opening rotation of the circular cap causes axial movement of the cutting ring to axially penetrate the packaging, necessarily producing a circular cut).
The purpose of a flange and a cut ring is to provide tamper evidence and cut open a beverage packaging ([0002] [0033] [0034] [0041]). 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 Li with a flange and cutting ring as taught by Rigling in order to advantageously provide means of opening a beverage packaging that has foil on the inside of the spout ([0041]) while keeping the cap open at the carton. The cutting functionality beneficially increases the variety of containers the closure can be used on, helping more people access their favorite drinks, and increasing profit from otherwise inaccessible markets.
In addition, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 II. Therefore since the structure of Li/Rigling performs the intended use of the tethered cutting cap being on a carton, the intended use claimed is met.
(Rigling, in light of further claims, further teaches,
Figs 1 and 2B and [0033], second male thread 7A of 2 engages with second female thread 6A of the spout;
Figs 1 and 2B show greater pitch of 6A and 7A versus the pitch of 4 and 16;
Fig 3 shows cam 17 inclined, & Fig 3, 14 follows 17,
Fig 2A, guide lugs 12 on the outside of the cutting ring are shown mutually radially overlapping bridge 15 on the inside of the spout
Figs 1 and 4 beginning, to Fig 9 entrainment has occurred, wherein rotating 3 causes 17 to push 14 only axially, and since the entrainment device started above the carton surface, 2 cuts and stops rotating from the guides and lug 9)
But Li/Rigling does not explicitly teach the upper separating strip twisting to stabilize open the cap via engagement of the strip to the pouring spout.
Benoit-Gonin, however, teaches a similar screw on cap comprising:
an upper separating strip forms an axial extension of a cap skirt (Fig 4, an axial extension of a cap skirt is an upper separating strip – separating the cap skirt from a bottom portion of a ring 3 and is between/separating two holding bands (from 4a through 22) – which is tongue 21), and as the cap is rotated on a closure lower part (Figs 2-4 show rotation of the screw cap on a lower part (a spout and a bottom flange)), the upper separating strip passes over a ridge on a pilferproof ring (Figs 3-4 show 21 pass over a top ridge of a pilferproof ring 3), and the upper separating strip twists (col 4, lines 59-61, then the cap tilts so the strip can twist “by virtue of… rolling and deformation of the tongue 21 against the neck 2a”; meaning in order for tongue 21 to reach Figure 8 open state, it must deform to flex and roll over the spout portion neck 2a in a path that twists 21), and is configured to stabilize an open end state of the screw cap (Fig 8, end state of the open cap is shown stabilized) such that an outside of a lower rim of the upper separating strip comes into engagement with the pouring spout portion above ridge after a pivoting movement (Fig 8, an outside of a lower rim of 21 engages spout portion 2a, which is a location above the ridge of 10, after the cap is shown pivoted (i.e. end state open and stabilized)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper separating strip of Li to engage above the ridge as taught by Benoit-Gonin’s upper separating strip structure (above) in order to advantageously prevent the cap from blocking the contents pouring out upon user and hitting the user’s face in other uses by firmly securing the cap stably open away from the spout opening.
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin does not explicitly teach their cited claimed elements together as a concept.
Barron, however, teaches the elements together as a concept at least including:
a screw cap (Fig 1, cap 24 with thread 30) pivotally hinged to a ring (Fig 1, pivot hinge 22, ring 21), wherein the ring stops at a pilferproof ring of a spout (Fig 1, pilferproof ring 13 of spout 6), and the spout extends into a flange for cartons/bags (Fig 1, 6 extends into flange 3 for carton/bag B) and the cap can hinge open ([0008] “closure… first-time opening” of cap 24 on hinge 22) after cutting with a cutting ring (Abstract, [0014] “During said rotational movement, if it is effected in the corresponding direction, the puncturing means 5 is put into a corresponding rotational movement by the two entrainment means 9 and 10 which are in engagement with each other. In this case, the puncturing means 5 is screwed downward and the cutting tooth 12 punctures the film of the container B which is closed per se and then opens the poly-tube bag for the first time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elements of the Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin together because an advantage is disclosed in Barron to have “the cap could act as a simple pivoting hinge closure” since “screw-type closures are now opened and closed multiple times during the use” as it is a “desirable” improvement (Barron, [0006]) versus losing the cap for cutter caps like Rigling that are not hinged or retained like Li.
Regarding claim 2, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron further teaches the cutting ring (Rigling, 2) has a second male thread on its outside in opposite relationship to the male thread of the pouring spout portion and which engages with a second female thread on the inside of the pouring spout portion (Rigling, Figs 1 and 2B and [0033], second male thread 7A of 2 engages with second female thread 6A of the spout). 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 3, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron further teaches the second female thread and the second male thread are of a greater pitch than the female thread of the screw cap and the male thread of the pouring spout portion (Rigling, Figs 1 and 2B show greater pitch of 6A and 7A versus the pitch of 4 and 16). 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 4, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach that the factor between the different pitches is at least 1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at at least 1.5, recognizing that higher pitch factor is directly correlated to an increased ease of cutting through by the user via fewer revolutions of the cap required and increased speed of cutting through the carton/membrane (since rotating the screw cap rotates the cutter [0044], Rigling), 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.
Regarding claim 5, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron further teaches the entrainment means (Rigling, Fig 1, 14 and 17) of the screw cap are in the form of
a lift cam with an edge which is inclined relative to the closure axis (Rigling, Fig 3 shows cam 17 inclined and capable of lifting) and
an element of the cutting ring is in the form of a cam follower (Rigling, Fig 3, cam 14 is an element that follows 17), and
mutually radially overlapping guide elements are provided on the outside of the cutting ring and on the inside of the pouring spout portion (Rigling, Fig 2A, guide element lugs 12 on the outside of the cutting ring are shown mutually radially overlapping guide element bridges 15 on the inside of the spout), wherein
at the beginning of an opening rotational movement of the screw cap (Rigling, 3) the guide elements permit only an axial movement of the cutting ring (Rigling, 2), and it is
only after a predetermined axial position of the cutting ring is reached that the guide elements allow entrainment of the cutting ring in the peripheral direction and limit further axial movement (Rigling, Figs 1 and 4 beginning, to Fig 9 entrainment has occurred, wherein rotating 3 causes 17 to push 14 only axially, and since the entrainment device started above the carton surface, 2 cuts and stops rotating from the guides and lug 9). 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 7, Li further teaches the upper weakening line has precisely one upper separating strip (Fig 1, 3 has only 5) and the lower weakening line has precisely one lower separating strip (Fig 1, 4 has only the lower interrupt portion) and the center points of the upper separating strip and lower separating strip are in a diametrically opposite relationship (Figs 1-2 show center points of the strips are in diametrically opposite relationship to each other (i.e. 4 is not offset from 3)).
Regarding claim 8, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach that the separating strip of the upper weakening line (Li, 5) extends over a peripheral angle between 100 and 750.
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 a peripheral angle between 100 and 750, recognizing that an increase/decrease in peripheral angle is directly correlated to increase/decrease tension and increase/decrease friction from spout engagement that tightens/loosens the stable open position, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach that the separating strip of the lower weakening line (Li, the lower interrupt portion) extends over a peripheral angle between 1200 and 2000.
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 a peripheral angle between 1200 and 2000, recognizing that an increase/decrease in peripheral angle is directly correlated to decrease/increase of the length of the bands thereby increase/decrease tension that tightens/loosens the stable open position, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Li further teaches that the width measured in the axial direction of the upper separating strip remaining on the cap skirt (Fig 1, a remaining axial width portion of 5 on (i.e. being the axial extension of) the cap skirt) is a proportion of the width of the intact tamper-evident band (Fig 1, is in a proportion of the width of 2),
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach a specific width ratio.
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 pick an upper separating strip axial width remaining on the cap skirt to be at least half the width of the tamper-evident band, recognizing that increasing the ratio is directly correlated to increased stability in the wide open position from more engagement to spout, and that decreasing the ratio is directly correlated to decreased stability in the wide open position from less engagement to spout, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Li further teaches the width measured in the axial direction of the upper separating strip remaining on the cap skirt (Fig 1, a remaining axial width portion of 5 on (i.e. being the axial extension of) the cap skirt),
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach a specific width.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick an upper separating strip axial width remaining on the cap skirt of at least 1.5 mm and less than 5 mm, recognizing that increasing the remainder is directly correlated to increased stability in the wide open position from more engagement to spout, and that decreasing the remainder is directly correlated to decreased stability in the wide open position from less engagement to spout, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Li further teaches the tamper-evident band (Fig 1, 2) is in the form of a flexband (Fig 2, 2 is shown flexing) having a radially outer part (2 has an outer surface) and a folded-over radially inner part (2 has an inner surface that gets folded over by the cap going to the open state).
Regarding claim 14, Li further teaches the minimum spacing of the upper weakening line and the lower weakening line is a distance (Fig 1, a minimum spacing distance between 3 and 4 is shown),
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach a particular distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick weakening lines spacing greater than 1.5 mm, recognizing that increasing distance is directly correlated to increased bands strength and stiffer tension while the cap is in open state to not be jostled to close prematurely as easily by the user/environment, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Li further teaches the outside diameter of the pouring spout portion above the pilferproof ring (Fig 2, a portion of container neck above a container neck retaining ring (i.e. that retains 2)), the inside diameter of the tamper-evident band (Fig 1, inside diameter of 2) and the width and the peripheral extent of the upper separating strip (Fig 1, the vertical and horizontal extents of 5) are so matched to each other that
after an opening rotation of the screw cap and the subsequent pivoting tipping movement of the screw cap (Fig 2, after opening)
upon twisting of the holding bands (Fig 2, both 6 necessarily twisted, as explained in claim 1) together with the separating strip (Fig 2, 5 is also pivoted together with the cap)
the free lower edge of the separating strip comes into engagement with the pouring spout portion (Fig 2, the free lower edge of 5 engages/contacts the spout (i.e. the pilferproof ring that is part of the spout; like Applicant Fig 5)) and
when a tipping angle of more than 900 is moved beyond a dead center point so that thereafter the outside of the upper separating strip comes into contact with the outside of the pouring spout portion and the screw cap is stabilized in that position of being tipped through more than 900 (Fig 2 shows greater than 90 degrees open, and necessarily shows the opening movement is beyond a dead center point (see claim 1, wide open)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron in view of US Pub 20040060893 by Kano et al. (hereinafter “Kano”).
Regarding claim 16, Li further teaches that the outside diameter of the bottle neck in a region above the pilferproof ring (Fig 2, a portion of container neck above a container neck retaining ring (i.e. that retains 2)) in which the tamper-evident band of the closure (2) is arranged is by at most 2.5 mm smaller than (cited neck diameter is smaller than cited tamper-evident band inside diameter) the nominal inside diameter (Fig 1, an inside diameter of 2) of the tamper-evident band,
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach a specific value of smaller.
Kano, however, teaches an outside diameter of a bottle neck is smaller than an inside diameter of a tamper-evident band by at most 2.5 mm, (see examiner annotated Kano Figure 2 first for measurements, where the value of ‘T1’ is 1 mm (Table of Values [0055]), therefore ‘Two T1’ is 2 mm, then see examiner annotated Kano Figure 1 (hereinafter “EAFKA1”); wherein the bottle neck diameter is smaller than the tamper-evident band diameter by 2 mm).
The purpose of a specific diameter difference is to accommodate flap pieces to retain the tamper-evident portion ([0035]) thereby prevent upward movement of tamper-evident portion ([0045]). 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 neck diameter to tamper-evident band diameter difference of Li with a specific diameter difference as taught by Kano in order to beneficially lower cooling time in the mold and increase molding efficiency by not being too large, and advantageously balance rigidity with a hermetical seal capability ([0043]) while reducing material costs.
In addition and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Li as modified above does not expressly disclose the specific diameter threshold value claimed, then 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 another diameter threshold value (including a value as recited) 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 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.
Claims 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron in view of JP 2014031202 by Abe Naoyuki (hereinafter “Naoyuki”).
Regarding claim 12, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach that the upper separating strip of the upper weakening line (Li, 5) has a radial thickening at least at its free lower rim.
Naoyuki, however, teaches a similar cap (Fig 8, cap 2) comprising:
an upper separating strip of the upper weakening line (Fig 5, 32 separates and is above a lower strip 46a and 46b) has a radial thickening at least at its free lower rim (Fig 9 shows the upper strip 32 is radially thickened from the spout central axis).
The purpose of thickening is to improve stability in open position. 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 upper separating strip of Li to be radially thickened as taught by Naoyuki in order to beneficially improve the stability in open position by reinforcing the engaged portion of the strip and stiffen the angle held in said open pivot position, to better help a user prevent premature closing that would interfere with pouring.
Regarding claim 17, Li further teaches that the pilferproof ring (Fig 2, the container neck retaining ring (i.e. that retains 2)) has a profile,
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron does not explicitly teach a particular defined profile.
Naoyuki, however, teaches a similar cap with a container neck pilferproof ring (Fig 9, trapezoidal cross-section ring 56) comprising:
a lower flank which extends in an axial section at at least 80 degrees relative to the pouring spout portion axis (Fig 9, a lower surface of 56 extends from the spout central axis at at least 80 degrees (i.e. substantially perpendicular)),
the region of maximum diameter (Fig 9, portion of 9 to the furthest circumferential diameter) and
an upper flank which extends at an angle of inclination less than 90 degrees relative to the pouring spout portion axis and beneath the thread of the pouring spout portion transitions into the outer pouring spout portion diameter (Fig 9, an upper surface of 56 forms an acute angle with the central axis then transitions to the outer surface of the neck, wherein a curved portion of the upper flank includes an angle less than 40 degrees), wherein
the upper flank or a portion of the bottle neck above the upper flank of the profile of the pilferproof ring extends at least in or as far as (examiner chooses “the upper flank extends at least in”) an axial position which is reached at a maximum folded-over position of the screw cap (Fig 9 shows a maximum folded-over/pivoted/wide open position of the screw cap in which the upper surface/flank of 56 is shown extending to support that position through a radially thickened upper strip 32)
from the lower edge of the upper separating strip is of a larger outside diameter than the pouring spout portion without thread profile (Fig 9 shows the following features to have a larger diameter than the pouring spout portion without a thread, in entirety: cap skirt, separating strips, pilferproof ring).
The purpose of a trapezoidal profile ring is to create a bi-stable mounting structure with the cap (page 2, line 28; from previous prior art WO 0026108 issued to Benoit-Gonin (which is US 6474491)). 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 pilferproof ring profile of Li to be a trapezoidal profile as taught by Naoyuki in order to beneficially provide bi-stability (page 2, lines 28-35; again as previous) via creation of a hard point halfway through the cap tilting, advantageously allowing a perfect tilting position given the elastic return of synthetic material that lends the user a free hand by not holding the cap themselves. This attractive handling, in addition to a more attractive visual appearance, advantageously differentiates the product.
Regarding claim 19, Li/Rigling//Benoit-Gonin/Barron/Naoyuki further teaches that the pilferproof ring (Li, Fig 2, pilferproof ring) is of a triangular or trapezoidal profile (Naoyuki, Fig 9, trapezoidal cross-section ring 56), the base of which is defined by an axis-parallel line on the cylindrical outside surface of the pouring spout portion and
the bottom flank of which includes an angle greater than 80 degrees with the axis of the container neck (Naoyuki, Fig 9, the lower surface of 56), wherein
the upper flank (Naoyuki, Fig 9, the upper surface of 56) of the profile includes an angle less than or equal to 40 degrees with (examiner chooses “less than”; Naoyuki, Fig 9, a curved portion of the upper flank includes an angle less than 40 degrees) the axis of the pouring spout portion (the lower flank, upper flank and a central-axis-parallel axis that intersects the outer surface of the neck and the flanks together form three sides of the four sided trapezoidal shape (thereby accommodating the triangular limitation as well)). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron/Naoyuki in view of US Pub 20040060893 by Kano et al. (hereinafter “Kano”).
Regarding claim 18, Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Naoyuki further teaches that the difference in the outside diameter of the upper flank (Naoyuki, Fig 9, the upper surface of 56) or the portion disposed thereabove and the bottle neck diameter without a thread profile (Li, Fig 2, a bottle neck diameter portion below thread and above pilferproof ring) is a value,
But Li/Rigling/Benoit-Gonin/Barron/Naoyuki does not explicitly teach a specific difference in diameter value.
Kano, however, teaches a difference (EAFKA1, difference) in an outside diameter of an upper flank (EAFKA1, upper flank of pilferproof ring (54, Fig 1)) and a bottle neck diameter without a thread (EAFKA1, bottle neck diameter without a thread) is at least 0.1 mm (EAFKA1, difference shown is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm).
The purpose of a specific difference in diameter value between an upper flank of the pilferproof ring and a bottle neck diameter without a thread is to provide a stopper for tamper-evident band flaps and more precisely fit a tamper-evident band that has a cap with a particularly measured seal within. 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 said diameter difference of Li with a specific diameter difference as taught by Kano in order to advantageously provide an excellent opening of the cap experience to the user and beneficially allowing designers to focus on unifying the important features of hermetical seal, opening feel, and material used resulting in the best values of those features into one difference in diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
1098
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
619
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 19 March 2026