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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 4/16/2026, wherein claims 1, 15, 17, 18 were amended. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is believed that the amended material "wherein the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion of the second part" in claims 1 and 15 are not supported by the specification. Upon further review, it is unclear if the as filed disclosure meets this claimed limitation. In this instance, the tamper element (5) is arranged between the second part features of 33 and 32. These features do not form a regular recess because one side (32) is at a lower height. A proper usage for an exact definition is; "a product is fully arranged in the container when the closure is closed", as it is enclosed on all sides. An example of something similar to the context of the present invention, is that a counter suck screw could be loosely considered "fully" arranged in a recess, and therefore can only be visible from a top view. However, in this case, a portion of the tamper element is visible from the top and side and allows the user to determine whether the tamper has been used. The tamper element extends above the second part (32). It is believed that the tamper element is intended to extend above the second part (feature 32) in the closed configuration to show that no tampering has occurred. It is noted that the closed condition is shown in figure 1. Further the closed position shown in figure 5 shows that the depth of tamper element (5) extends below the second part (3) and its recessed portion. Claims 1-14, 16-18 directly or indirectly depend from claims 1or 15 and are also rejected.
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 “wherein the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion of the second part” in claim 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Upon further review, it is unclear if the as filed disclosure meets this claimed limitation. In this instance, the tamper element (5) is arranged The tamper element extends above the second part (32). It is believed that the tamper element is intended to extend above the second part (feature 32) in the closed configuration to show that no tampering has occurred. It is noted that the closed condition is shown in figure 1. In the current description, the claim language fails to meet the depth requirement in the closed configuration to use the term “fully” arranged. Claims 1-14, 16-18 directly or indirectly depend from claims 1or 15 and are also rejected. For the purposes of examination, the term “fully” arranged shall be broadly read such that partial relationships meet the claimed limitations.
The term “wherein the closure is made of 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” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. How can a closure be made of vegetable oil, renewable oil, used cooking oil, or animal fat? However, these products are not able to form a stable product. For example, vegetable oil and cooking oil are liquids. How can you produce a structured closure completely out of a liquid/oil? These appear to be lubricating materials; however, lubricants (or their necessity) are not claimed. As presented in the claims, it must be possible to make the invention out of all of the materials listed, is that truly a capability of the present invention?
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 portion of the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion (indentation between arms 12) of the second part (4) when 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 portion of the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion (indentation between arms 12) of the second part (4) when 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 portion of the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion (indentation between arms 12) of the second part (4) when 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with respect to the amended material "wherein the tamper evidence element is fully arranged in a recessed portion of the second part". Upon further review, it is unclear if the as filed disclosure meets this claimed limitation. In this instance, the tamper element (5) is arranged in the second part features of 33 and 32. These features do not form a regular recess. Under a certain view, a countersunk screw could be considered as an arranged fully within a recess, and can only be visible from a top view. However, in this case, a portion of the tamper element is visible from the top and side and allows the user to determine whether the tamper has been used. The tamper element extends above item 32. As written, the claim language does not indicate that an entire perimeter of the tamper element is surrounded by the recess. See the 112 rejections above for further reasoning. Perhaps more structural limitations are necessary to define over the prior art.
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 extension fee 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 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights