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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 ,15, and 18 were amended. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-18 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.
The term “substantially flush” in claim 1 and 15 renders the claim indefinite. The term substantially does not have exact bounds and metes. For example, the drawings show a tamper element that is offset from the second element. Does this offset qualify under substantially flush? If so, how much offset is allowed in order for two surfaces to still be considered substantially flush. For the purposes of examination, the term substantially flush shall be broadly interpreted. Claims 2-14 and 16-18 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and 15 and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 6877631 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Thompson discloses a closure for a container, comprising a first part (2); a second part (4) relatively movable to the first part to move between a closed condition, in which an opening (interior of rim of 2) of the closure is covered, and an open condition, in which the opening is uncovered; and a tamper evidence element (14), connected to the second part by a frangible connection (16) and arranged to be withheld relative to the first part such that, as the second part (2) moves with an opening motion relative to the first part from the closed condition to the open condition, the opening motion ruptures the frangible connection (16), wherein a top surface of the tamper evidence element is positioned substantially flush with the second part (4 top portion) when the tamper evidence element is in a sealed state and the second part is in the closed condition, wherein the tamper evidence element (14) is adapted to be actuated in order to rupture the frangible connection (16) independent of moving the second part relative to the first part by the opening motion (pressing down motion, abstract), and wherein the closure further comprises a holding device (6, 26) arranged on the first part (2) and adapted to secure the tamper evidence element (14) to the first part (2) after the frangible connection (16) has been ruptured.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1, wherein the holding device (6, 26) is adapted to withhold the tamper evidence element (14) relative to the first part (2) as the second part (4) moves relative to the first part by the opening motion to allow rupturing of the frangible connection.
With respect to claim 3, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1, wherein the holding device (6, 26) is adapted to secure the tamper evidence element (14) such that, after the frangible connection (16) has been ruptured, the tamper evidence element is movable relative to the holding device with a first action. (inherently movable if ruptured upon opening lid, just like the present invention)
With respect to claim 4, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1,wherein the holding device comprises a section (28) for securing the tamper evident element to the first part, and wherein the tamper evidence element (14) is, by actuating the tamper evidence element, movable towards the section in order to rupture the frangible connection (16).
With respect to claim 5, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim1,wherein the holding device is adapted to secure the tamper evidence element with a snap fit. (col 3 lines 46-49)
With respect to claim 6, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim1,wherein the tamper evidence element (14) is adapted to be pushed in order to be actuated (abstract), wherein the tamper evidence element is at least in part designed as a button.
With respect to claim 7, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1,wherein the second part comprises a wall portion (figure 1), wherein, when viewed at least along a direction perpendicular to the wall portion, the tamper evidence element (14) exposes the wall portion after the frangible connection has been ruptured (fig 2).
With respect to claim 8, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim1,wherein the first part (2) comprises the opening, and wherein the second part (4) covers, in the closed condition, the opening and uncovers, in the open condition, the opening.
With respect to claim 10, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1,wherein the first part and the second part comprise one or more fastening elements for fastening the second part to the first part in the closed condition. (col 2 lines 22-25)
With respect to claim 11, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 7,wherein the second part comprises a grasping portion (12) for grasping the second part in order to move the second part (4) relative to the first part (2), wherein, when the tamper evidence element is connected to the second part by the frangible connection (16), the tamper evidence element is arranged between the grasping portion (12) and the wall portion (fig 1, labeled as wall portion) of the second part.
With respect to claim 12, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1,wherein the second part is hinged to the first part. (col 4 lines 20-23)
With respect to claim 13, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 1,wherein the first part is integral with the second part. (col 4 lines 20-23)
With respect to claim 15, Thompson discloses a system, comprising a container; and a closure, the closure comprising a first part (2); a second part (4) relatively movable to the first part to move between a closed condition, in which an opening (interior of rim of 2) of the closure is covered, and an open condition, in which the opening is uncovered; and a tamper evidence element (14) connected to the second part by a frangible connection (16) and arranged to be withheld relative to the first part such that, as the second part (2) moves with an opening motion relative to the first part from the closed condition to the open condition, the opening motion being configured to rupture the frangible connection(16), wherein a top surface of the tamper evidence element is positioned substantially flush with the second part (4 top portion) when the tamper evidence element is in a sealed state and the second part is in the closed condition, wherein the tamper evidence element (14) is adapted to be actuated in order to rupture the frangible connection (16) independent of moving the second part relative to the first part by the opening motion(pressing down motion, abstract), and wherein the closure further comprises a holding device (6, 26) arranged on the first part (2) and adapted to secure the tamper evidence element (14) to the first part after the frangible connection (16) has been ruptured, wherein the first part (2) or the second part of the closure is attached to the container.
Examiner Note: Technically the closure is attached to the container.
With respect to claim 16, Thompson discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one of the first part or the second part (2) of the closure is formed integrally with the container.
Examiner Note: the limitation “is formed integrally” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 17, Thompson discloses the closure according to claim 4, wherein the holding device (6, 26) is adapted to secure the tamper evidence element to be not movable relative to the section.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimono (US 20150216341 A1) in view of Thompson (US 6877631 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Shimono discloses a closure for a container, comprising a first part (10); a second part (50) relatively movable to the first part to move between a closed condition, in which an opening of the closure is covered, and an open condition, in which the opening is uncovered.
Shimono failed to disclose of a tamper evidence element (14) that is, on the one hand, connected to the second part by a frangible connection (16) and that is, on the other hand, arranged to be withheld relative to the first part such that, as the second part (2) moves with an opening motion relative to the first part from the closed condition to the open condition, the opening motion ruptures the frangible connection (16), wherein a top surface of the tamper evidence element is positioned substantially flush with the second part (4 top portion) when the tamper evidence element is in a sealed state and the second part is in the closed condition, wherein the tamper evidence element (14) is adapted to be actuated in order to rupture the frangible connection (16) independent of moving the second part relative to the first part by the opening motion (pressing down motion, abstract), and wherein the closure further comprises a holding device (6, 26) arranged on the first part (2) and adapted to secure the tamper evidence element (14) to the first part (2) after the frangible connection (16) has been ruptured. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Thompson taught of a lid and container that have a tamper evident that meet the claim limitations (see parenthesis above for specific parts); “In order to attempt to counter modern trends towards sabotaging the contents of certain containers” (col 1 lines 9-10). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Shimono to include a tamper evidence element as taught by Thompson in order to allow for the detection of tampering.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, Shimono further discloses closure according to claim 1,wherein the first part (10) comprises a sealing wall with an angled section (32,33), wherein the second part (50) comprises a first wall (53) contactable with the sealing wall, such as with the angled section and/or a straight section (13) of the sealing wall, and wherein the second part (50) further comprises a second wall (52) that is distanced further from an outer edge of the second part than the first wall and contactable with the angled section (32,33), such as with a distal end of the sealing wall that is part of the angled section.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, Shimono further discloses wherein the closure is partially or completely made of biodegradable material. (Page 5 [0061]) Further the use of biodegradable materials are an obvious design choice for the invention of Shimono and Thompson.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, Shimono further discloses wherein the closure partially or completely comprises food crops, wood cuts, a renewable oil, a vegetable oil, waste or residues, used cooking oil, animal fat from food industry waste, vegetable oil processing waste and residues, fish fat from fish processing waste, technical corn oil, and combinations thereof. (Page 5 [0061])
Examiner Note: Poly-lactic acid is a biodegradable thermoplastic polyester that is derived from renewable resources like corn, sugarcane, or cassava. Therefore meeting the food crop limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant believes amendments which use the phrasing "substantially flush" overcomes the prior art. However, firstly the term "substantially" broadens the reading. Further, the term flush as defined by Merriam-Webster means "even or level, as with a surface; forming the same plane." This does not require surfaces be contacting one another, as the present invention does not have contacting surfaces. Further, the amendments don't specify the surface on the second element. For example, the top surface of the second element (4) of Thompson is at a similar height as the top surface of the tamper element (22). With broad reading of “substantially flush”, it could be considered that Thompsons tamper elements top surface is substantially flush with the second element.
Alternatively, a change of shape argument could pertain to increase the height of the tamper element or decrease the height of the second element. However, this argument was not used due to the broad nature of the term “substantially” flush.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6877631 B1, US 8127961 B2, US 8146766 B2, US 20150216341 A1, US 20200087038 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights