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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of the Remarks that Vogel teaches away positioning the outer perimeter seal nearer to the longitudinal axis than the abutment and farther from the longitudinal axis than the spout, as required in claim 1.
In this case, both prior art Vogel and Brannon disclose similar drain-back closures, in the same field of art as the instant invention. Vogel discloses all of the limitations in claim 1 except for a spud nearer to a longitudinal axis than an abutment. Brannon discloses a similar drain-back closure with a spud (50) engaging an abutment (28) wherein the spud is nearer to a longitudinal axis that the abutment. Rearranging the spud and abutment so that the spud is nearer to a longitudinal axis than the abutment would still result in the spud sealing the spout while keeping the drain-back feature of the closure.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of a spud engaging an abutment wherein the spud is nearer to a longitudinal axis that the abutment, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04 VI. A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel, et al. (“Vogel”) (U.S. Pub. 2015/0217910) in view of Brannon, et al. (“Brannon”) (U.S. Pub. 2014/0252034).
Regarding claim 1, Vogel discloses a closure (12) comprising: a top profile (18) having an exterior surface (implicitly) and an interior surface (implicitly) opposite said exterior surface; a spud (46) projecting from said interior surface; a hinge (80) engaging said top profile to a main body (16); an abutment (34) in said main body sealingly engaged with said spud, wherein said abutment extends around a longitudinal axis passing through said top profile and said spud; a collar (fig. 11) engaged with said abutment and oriented away from said top profile;
a spout (32) projecting from said floor towards said top profile, wherein said spout extends at least partially around said longitudinal axis and is nearer to said longitudinal axis than said abutment; a floor (112) peripherally bounded by said abutment; a sealing member (36) that is at least part of, optionally an entirety of, said floor, wherein said sealing member is peripherally bounded by a frangible boundary (72) extending around said longitudinal axis; a tab (38) extending from said sealing member towards said top profile; wherein said sealing member and said abutment are a continuous single constitutive material (fig. 11) and the sealing member is at least partially peripherally bound by said spout.
Vogel discloses that the spud is farther from the longitudinal axis than the spout but does not disclose that the spud is nearer to the axis that the abutment.
Brannon discloses a similar apparatus with a spud (50) engaging an abutment (28) wherein the spud is nearer to a longitudinal axis that the abutment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of a spud engaging an abutment wherein the spud is nearer to a longitudinal axis that the abutment, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04 VI. A.
Regarding claim 4, Vogel discloses that spout has a dispensing lip and said longitudinal axis can be between said dispensing lip and said hinge, wherein a drain back (42) channel is defined by part of said abutment, part of said spout, and part of said floor connecting said abutment and said spout, wherein when said closure is in a position such that said dispensing lip is above said collar said drain back channel is sloped in a direction away from beneath said dispensing lip.
Regarding claim 5, Vogel discloses that the tab (38) is a loop (¶ [0042]: “pull ring”), wherein said loop is positioned between said floor and said top profile.
Regarding claim 6, Vogel discloses that the spud (44) is a continuous flange extending around said longitudinal axis. (fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7, Vogel discloses that the tab (38) extends from said sealing member at an initiation location, wherein said longitudinal axis L is between (fig. 9) said initiation location and said hinge (80).
Regarding claim 8, Vogel discloses that the frangible boundary (72) is thinner (fig. 11) than parts of said sealing member (36) along said frangible boundary.
Regarding claim 9, Vogel discloses that the hinge is a living hinge. (¶ [0066-0067])
Regarding claim 10, Vogel discloses that the collar (fig. 11) has an inwardly oriented surface oriented towards said longitudinal axis and an outwardly oriented surface oriented away from said longitudinal axis, wherein said inwardly oriented surface or said outwardly oriented surface comprises threads (82).
Regarding claim 11, Vogel discloses that the collar (fig. 11) has an inwardly oriented surface oriented towards said longitudinal axis and an outwardly oriented surface oriented away from said longitudinal axis, wherein a snap bead (¶ [0057]) projects from said inwardly oriented surface or from said outwardly oriented surface.
Regarding claim 14, Vogel discloses that the spud is a continuous flange extending around said longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 15, Vogel discloses that the closure is engaged with a container comprised of said single constitutive material.
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 MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MJM/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754