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 .
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.
Claims 1-13 and 17 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pour opening" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites wherein “the first, second, third and fourth ends are arranged one after the other in the circumferential direction on the free edge and on the security ring”. it is unclear if the ends are always in line or if this is only in the open or closed position.
Claim 7 recites wherein “the first, second, third and fourth ends are arranged one after the other in the circumferential direction on the free edge and on the security ring”. it is unclear if the ends are always in line or if this is only in the open or closed position.
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) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire (US-11312544-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Maguire disclose a container closure (Fig. 32) for closing a pour opening of a container (700) comprising a screw cap (701) with a free edge, a first cylindrical casing, a cover disk (708), and an inner thread that is formed on an inside of the casing and can interact with an outer thread of a container neck of the container (col. 10, lines 14-22); a security ring (702) configured to be held on a first protrusion molded on the container neck; a plurality of break-off webs (31) releasably connecting the security ring to the free edge; a first holding strip (705) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is fixedly connected to the free edge of the screw cap, and the second end is fixedly connected to the security ring (Fig. 33); and a second holding strip (706) having a third end and a fourth end, wherein the third end is fixedly connected to the free edge of the screw cap, and the fourth end is fixedly connected to the security ring (Fig. 33), the screw cap can be folded from a closed position (Fig. 32), in which the screw cap closes the pour opening, into an open position (Fig. 34), in which the screw cap fully opens the pour opening, and vice versa; wherein the first, second, third and fourth ends are arranged one after the other in a circumferential direction on the free edge and on the security ring (Fig. 32).
Maguire fails to teach wherein a length of the first or second holding strip corresponds to between 27% and 32% of the outer diameter of the screw cap.
Maguire further teaches that the holding strips can be manufactured with different lengths (col. 8, lines 13-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the strips to be longer, in order to provide greater access to the pour opening of the container and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the lengths of the first and second holding strips enable the screw cap to be latchable in the open position with its free edge on an underside of a support ring formed below the container neck (based on the modified size, col. 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 3, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches a first kink or second kink at the second op fourth end (Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 4, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches first and second recesses for receiving the strips on an edge of the security ring (Fig. 33, below 705 and 706).
Regarding claim 5, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches an extension (at 711) on the security ring between the send end and second recess.
Regarding claim 6, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches a third recess (711) on the security ring between the second end and second recess.
Regarding claim 7, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the second end and fourth end enclose an opening angle of at least 60 degrees and at most 90 degrees with respect to a center point of the security ring as an apex (based on the modified size, col. 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 8, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the break-off webs are arranged at regular intervals along the free edge (col. 4, ll. 51 – col. 5, ll. 11).
Regarding claim 10, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the first and second holding strips have a width between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm (based on the modified size, col. 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 11, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the closure is designed to interact with a standardized container neck having an outer thread (at 410) and a holding ring (411).
Regarding claim 12, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the closure cap is plastic (col. 5, lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 13, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the closure cap is manufactured as a single piece (col. 5, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 14, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches all the claimed limitations a shown above and a container (400) having container body, container neck (410), outer thread (Fig. 24) and support ring (411).
Regarding claim 15, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein the free edge (at 710) of the screw cap in the open position is latched on an under side of the support ring (based on the modified size, col. 8, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 16, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches wherein in the open position the free edge is orientated in a direction of the pour opening (Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 17, the modified container closure of Maguire teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire in view of Benoit-Gonin et al. (US-6474491-B1).
Maguire fails to teach an inner cone for sealing with an inner wall of the container neck.
Benoit-Gonin teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a closure with an inner cone for sealing (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure with an inner cone, in order to improve the seal on a container.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/778,592 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are broader in scope than the reference application and therefore anticipated by the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights