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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the secondary axis 47b is not shown properly in figure 1. The axis identified by reference character 47b in figure 1 is not the minor axis.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 31, 35, 45, 49.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. MPEP 608.02 V. The sectional view of figure 10 is not indicated by a broken line.
The drawings are objected to because no single reference character may be used for a given part and a modification of such part. MPEP 608.02(e). See at least 11 which has been used to designate multiple different container closures.
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cover being a disc shape of claims 1, 8, 9, and 25 and the cap being a screw cap that has an internal thread and is configured to be screwed onto a collar with an external thread upwardly extending on the cover disc of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first sealing element in claims 1, 12, and 25 and a second sealing element of claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of sealing or the function of projecting into the dispensing opening. Second sealing element is equivalent to second element for sealing. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-11, 20, and 24-26 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 limitation of claim 9 of “second sealing element … that projects into the dispensing opening” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed functions of sealing and projecting into the dispensing opening. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the sealing or the projecting. The use of the term element is not adequate structure for performing the sealing or projecting function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect sealing and projecting. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claims 1 and 25 of “a cover disc” are led to be indefinite. The metes and bounds of “disc” are unclear. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “disc” as a thin circular object. However, none of the original figures depict the cover being circular. In light of the original disclosure the limitation will be interpreted as if the cover is a thin rounded object. Further clarification and/or correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation the at least one latch opening, and the claim also recites the latch opening which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “an elliptical shape” is a newly recited structure or refers back to “the shape of an ellipse” of claim 19 from which claim 20 depends. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
The limitation of claim 24 that “a front surface of the elevation is oriented obliquely in a direction of the container neck” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the front surface is in a direction of the container neck or is in a direction oriented obliquely to the container neck. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the upper end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the inner side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the container opening" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the container" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a container” of line 11 is a newly recited structure or refers back to “the container” of line 10. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 25 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a container opening” of line 12 is a newly recited structure or refers back to “the container opening” of line 7. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites the broad recitation the at least one latch opening, and the claim also recites the latch opening which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 23, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newberry (US 20090101647).
Claim 1: Newberry discloses a serving lid closure 14 (container closure) for closing a container opening of a container, comprising; an outer skirt 78 (casing), a platform 42 (cover disc) which abuts the upper end of the outer skirt 78 (casing), a dispensing opening that is provided in the platform 42 (cover disc), an inner rectangular skirt 74 (first sealing element) that is formed on the inner side of the platform 42 (cover disc) and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a flap 62 (cap) that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the outer skirt 78 (casing) defining at least one locking slot (latch opening) configured to interact with a latch element of the container (see annotated fig. 2 below and fig. 1a).
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Newberry discloses wherein the at least one locking slot (latch opening) comprises two locking slots (latch openings) diametrically opposite to one another in the outer skirt 78 (casing) (see fig. 4).
Claim 4: Newberry discloses wherein the at least one locking slot (latch opening) has a first latching edge that is oriented parallel to an open end of the outer skirt 78 (casing) and has a shortest distance from the open end of the outer skirt 78 (casing) compared to the other edges of the latch opening (31) (see annotated fig. 2 above and fig. 1a).
Claim 6: Newberry discloses wherein the at least one locking slot (latch opening) has a rectangular shape (see fig. 1b and 2).
Claim 7: Newberry discloses wherein the flap 62 (cap) is a hinged cap which is articulated to the outer skirt 78 (casing) (see fig. 2).
Claim 11: Newberry discloses wherein the serving lid closure 14 (container closure) is free of an inner casing which that is formed between the outer skirt 78 (casing) and the inner rectangular skirt 74 (first sealing element) (see fig. 1a).
Claim 12: Newberry discloses a container 18, in particular a plastic container (see title), configured to receive some container closure comprising: a casing, a cover disc which abuts the upper end of the casing, a dispensing opening that is provided in the cover disc, a first sealing element that is formed on the inner side of the cover disc and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a cap that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the casing defining at least one latch opening configured to interact with a latch element of the container 18, and the container 18 comprising: a container opening, a container body, a container neck that surrounds and thereby defines the container opening, and a container shoulder that connects the neck to the container body, and at least one locking tab 66 (latch element) on the container neck configured to be latched in the latch opening of the container closure (see annotated fig. 1b below).
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
Blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: Newberry discloses the at least one locking tab 66 (latch element) being formed on the container neck (see annotated fig. 1b above).
Stretch-blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 16: Newberry discloses wherein the container shoulder has a flat shape lying in a horizontal direction (see annotated fig. 1b above).
Claim 18: Newberry discloses two locking tabs 66 (latch elements) formed diametrically opposite one another on the container neck (see annotated fig. 1b above and fig. 3).
Claim 23: Newberry discloses wherein the locking tab 66 (latch element) has a second latching edge capable of interacting with some first latching edge of some latch opening (see annotated fig. 1b above).
Claim 25: Newberry discloses a spice container package 10 (closure system) comprising; a serving lid closure 14 (container closure), comprising: an outer skirt 78 (casing), a platform 42 (cover disc) which abuts the upper end of the outer skirt 78 (casing), a dispensing opening that is provided in the platform 42 (cover disc), an inner rectangular skirt 74 (first sealing element) that is formed on the inner side of the platform 42 (cover disc) and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a flap 62 (cap) that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the outer skirt 78 (casing) defining at least one locking slot (latch opening) configured to interact with a locking tab 66 (latch element) of the container 18, and a container 18 comprising: a container opening, a container body, a container neck that surrounds and thereby defines the container opening, and a container shoulder that connects the neck to the container body, and at least one locking tab 66 (latch element) on the container neck configured to be latched in the locking slot (latch opening) of the serving lid closure 14 (container closure), wherein the serving lid closure 14 (container closure) latches with the container 18 while being pressed thereon, and wherein a cam surface 82 (front surface) of the at least one locking tab 66 (latch element), which penetrates the locking slot (latch opening), is flush with an outer face of the outer skirt 78 (casing), at least at the lowermost extent of the cam surface 82 (front surface) (see annotated fig. 2 below and fig. 1a).
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 26: Newberry discloses wherein an outer surface of the outer skirt 78 (casing) is flush with an outer surface of the container body (see annotated fig. 1b above and fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20160332788).
Claim 1: Chen discloses a dispenser cap 45 (container closure) for closing a container opening of a container, comprising; a dispenser cap body 45A and tapered portion and tapered portion 45G, together reading on the claimed casing, an outlet surface 45D (cover disc) which abuts the upper end of the dispenser cap body 45A and tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing), a dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening) that is provided in the outlet surface 45D (cover disc), a first sealing element that is formed on the inner side of the outlet surface 45D (cover disc) and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a lid 45B (cap) that closes or opens the dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening), the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) defining at least one latch port 36 (latch opening) configured to interact with a latch element (45) of the container (see annotated fig. 7 below).
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
374
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Chen discloses wherein the at least one latch port 36 (latch opening) comprises two latch ports 36 (latch openings) diametrically opposite to one another in the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) (see fig. 4).
Claim 3: Chen discloses wherein the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) has an elliptical cross section, wherein the two latch ports 36 (latch openings) are provided on a main axis of the elliptical cross section (see fig. 6 and 4). Examiner notes that a circle is an ellipse.
Claim 4: Chen discloses wherein the at least one latch port 36 (latch opening) has a first latching edge that is oriented parallel to an open end of the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) and has a shortest distance from the open end of the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) compared to the other edges of the latch port 36 (latch opening) (see annotated fig. 7 above and annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
381
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Chen discloses wherein the lid 45B (cap) is a hinged cap which is articulated to the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) (see fig. 6).
Claim 10: Chen discloses the dispenser cap 45 (closure) has a truncated cone shape (see fig. 6 and P. 0063).
Claim 11: Chen discloses wherein the dispenser cap 45 (closure) is free of an inner casing which that is formed between the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) and the first sealing element (see annotated fig. 7 above).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20160332788) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams (US 20030178433).
Chen discloses a prior art dispenser cap 45 (container closure) having all the recited structure, but which differs from the claimed device in that the lid 45B (cap) is a hinged cap closing dispensing outlet 45C instead of a screw cap having an internal thread and being configured to be screwed onto a collar with an external thread upwardly extending on the cover disc. Adams discloses a prior art removable lid 4 having spout 6 (collar) with screw threads 7 (external thread) upwardly extending therefrom and a screw cap 8 having an internal thread (see fig. 1). The substitution of one known element (screw cap 8 with internal thread attached to spout 6 (collar) with screw threads 7 (external thread) as shown in Adams) for another (hinged cap closing dispensing outlet 45C as shown in Chen) would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the screw cap 8 spout 6 (collar) with screw threads 7 (external thread) in Adams would have yielded predictable results, namely, closure in Chen to prevent contents from exiting.
Chen additionally discloses wherein the lid 45B (cap) is a screw cap (see P. 0070).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20160332788) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maelstaf (FR 2939413).
Claim 9: Chen discloses a second sealing element formed on an inside of the lid 45B (cap)
Chen does not disclose the second sealing element projecting into the dispensing opening when the cap is placed on the cover disc.
Chen discloses a prior art dispenser cap 45 (container closure) having all the recited structure, but which differs from the claimed device in that second sealing element surrounds the dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening) instead of projecting into the dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening) when the lid 45B (cap) is placed on the outlet surface 45D (cover disc). Maelstaf discloses a prior art insert 4 having a closure member 22 (second sealing element) formed on an inside of a cover 23 and that projects into an orifice 21 (see fig. 1-2). The substitution of one known element (closure member 22 (second sealing element) as shown in Maelstaf) for another (second sealing element as shown in Chen) would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the closure member 22 (second sealing element) in Maelstaf would have yielded predictable results, namely, engagement with the dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening) in Chen to seal the dispensing outlet 45C (dispensing opening).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20160332788).
Claim 5: Chen discloses a distance between the first latching edge and the open end of the tapered portion and tapered portion 45G (casing) (see annotated fig. 6 and 7 above).
Chen does not disclose the distance being between 2 and 6 mm or between 2 and 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to made the distance between 2 and 6 mm in order to decrease the overall height and save materials and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for either of the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry (US 20090101647).
Claim 5: Newberry discloses a distance between the first latching edge and the open end of the outer skirt 78 (casing) (see annotated fig. 2 above).
Newberry does not disclose the distance being between 2 and 6 mm or between 2 and 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to made the distance between 2 and 6 mm in order to decrease the overall height and save materials and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for either of the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery (US RE38399) further in view of Suffa (US 20040245204).
Claim 12: Montgomery discloses a bottle 2 (container) configured to receive some container closure comprising: a casing, a cover disc which abuts the upper end of the casing, a dispensing opening that is provided in the cover disc, a first sealing element that is formed on the inner side of the cover disc and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening 5, and a cap that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the casing defining at least one latch opening configured to interact with a latch element of the bottle 2 (container), and the bottle 2 (container) comprising: a container opening 5, a container body, a neck portion 3 (container neck) that surrounds and thereby defines the container opening 5, and a container shoulder that connects the neck portion 3 (container neck) to the container body, and at least one bottle ring lug 10 (latch element) on the neck portion 3 (container neck) configured to be latched in the latch opening of the container closure (see annotated fig. 7 below and fig. 4).
Montgomery does not disclose the container being a blow-molded plastic container.
Suffa teaches a plastic bottle 1 (see P. 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the bottle 2 (container) out of plastic, as taught by Suffa, due to plastics moldability, low weight, and low cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
Blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
PNG
media_image5.png
724
397
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: The combination discloses the at least one bottle ring lug 10 (latch element) being formed on the neck portion 3 (container neck) (see fig. 4 and 7).
Stretch-blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 15: The combination discloses a ring 8 (support ring) on the neck portion 3 (container neck), on which ring 8 (support ring) the at least one bottle ring lug 10 (latch element) projects (see fig. 3, 4 and 7).
Claim 18: The combination discloses two bottle ring lugs 10 (latch elements) formed diametrically opposite one another on the container neck (see C. 3 L. 41-42).
Claim 23: The combination discloses wherein the bottle ring lug 10 (latch element) has a second latching edge capable of interacting with some first latching edge of some latch opening (see annotated fig. 7 above).
Claim(s) 12-14, 16-18, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP 5325847) further in view of Suffa (US 20040245204).
Claim 12: Matsuo discloses a container body 2 (container) configured to receive some container closure comprising: a casing, a cover disc which abuts the upper end of the casing, a dispensing opening that is provided in the cover disc, a first sealing element that is formed on the inner side of the cover disc and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a cap that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the casing defining at least one latch opening configured to interact with a latch element of the container body 2 (container), and the container body 2 (container) comprising: a container opening, a container body, an opening portion 3 (container neck) that surrounds and thereby defines the container opening, and a container shoulder 7 that connects the opening portion 3 (container neck) to the container body, and at least one locking portion 10 (latch element) on the container shoulder 7 configured to be latched in the latch opening of the container closure (see annotated fig. 1 and 2b below).
Montgomery does not disclose the container being a blow-molded plastic container.
Suffa teaches a plastic bottle 1 (see P. 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the container body 2 (container) out of plastic, as taught by Suffa, due to plastics moldability, low weight, and low cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
Blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
PNG
media_image6.png
388
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
672
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the at least one locking portion 10 (latch element) is formed on the container shoulder 7 (see fig. 1).
Extrusion-blow molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 17: The combination discloses a ledge, on which the open end of the casing can rest, is formed at a transition from the container shoulder 7 to the container body (see annotated fig. 1 and 2b above).
Claim 18: The combination discloses two locking portions 10 (latch elements) being located on one side and two locking portions 10 (latch elements) located on an opposite side of the container shoulder 7 (see fig. 1).
Matsuo further discloses a container body 2 having a locking portion 10’ formed at a center of the wide surface of the base portion of the container shoulder 7 (see fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the container body 2 (container) to have two locking portions 10 (latch elements) formed diametrically opposite one another on the container shoulder 7, as taught by Matsuo, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
Claim 23: The combination discloses the locking portion 10 (latch element) having a second latching edge configured to interact with a first latching edge of the latch opening (see annotated fig. 2b above).
Claim 24: The combination discloses the locking portion 10 (latch element) being a step-shaped elevation on the container shoulder 7, wherein a front surface of the elevation is oriented obliquely in a direction of the opening portion 3 (container neck) (see annotated fig. 1 and 2b above).
Claim 12: Under a second interpretation Matsuo discloses a container body 2 (container) configured to receive some container closure comprising: a casing, a cover disc which abuts the upper end of the casing, a dispensing opening that is provided in the cover disc, a first sealing element that is formed on the inner side of the cover disc and is provided to project sealingly into the container opening, and a cap that closes or opens the dispensing opening, the casing defining at least one latch opening configured to interact with a latch element of the container body 2 (container), and the container body 2 (container) comprising: a container opening, a container body, container neck that surrounds and thereby defines the container opening, and a container shoulder that connects the container neck to the container body, and at least one locking portion 10 (latch element) on the container neck configured to be latched in the latch opening of the container closure (see annotated fig. 1 and 2b above and annotated fig. 2b below).
Montgomery does not disclose the container being a blow-molded plastic container.
Suffa teaches a plastic bottle 1 (see P. 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the container body 2 (container) out of plastic, as taught by Suffa, due to plastics moldability, low weight, and low cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The first sealing element to project sealingly into the container opening is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cone sealer, truncated cone, and equivalents thereof.
Blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
PNG
media_image8.png
405
297
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: The second interpretation combination discloses the at least one locking portion 10 (latch element) being formed on the container neck (see second annotated fig. 2b above).
Stretch-blow-molded is a product-by-process limitation. “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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 16: The second interpretation combination discloses the container shoulder having a flat shape lying in a horizontal direction (see second annotated fig. 2b above).
Claim 18: The second interpretation combination discloses two locking portions 10 (latch elements) being located on one side and two locking portions 10 (latch elements) located on an opposite side of the container neck (see fig. 1).
Matsuo further discloses a container body 2 having a locking portion 10’ formed at a center of the wide surface of the base portion of the container shoulder 7 (see fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the container body 2 (container) to have two locking portions 10 (latch elements) formed diametrically opposite one another on the container neck, as taught by Matsuo, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (JP 5325847) and Suffa (US 20040245204)further in view of Suffa (US 6609637).
Claim 19: The combination discloses the container shoulder 7 having a substantially elliptical shape.
Suffa teaches a bottle container 3 having an elliptical shoulder (see annotated fig. 19 below and fig. 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the container shoulder 7 be elliptical, as taught by Suffa, in order to strengthen the container body 2 (container) due to the removal of the corners of the substantially elliptical shape. Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the elliptical shape.
PNG
media_image9.png
374
422
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 22: The combination discloses wherein the two locking portions 10 (latch elements) are formed on a secondary axis of the ellipse (see fig. 4a).
Claim 21: The combination discloses the ledge having a substantially elliptical shape.
Suffa teaches a bottle container 3 having an elliptical ledge (see annotated fig. 19 above and fig. 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the ledge be elliptical, as taught by Suffa, in order to strengthen the container body 2 (container) due to the removal of the corners of the substantially elliptical shape. Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the elliptical shape.
Claim 19: The second interpretation combination discloses the container shoulder having a substantially elliptical shape.
Suffa teaches a bottle container 3 having an elliptical ledge leading into an elliptical shoulder (see annotated fig. 19 below and fig. 18).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the container shoulder be elliptical, as taught by Suffa, in order to strengthen the container body 2 (container) due to the removal of the corners of the substantially elliptical shape. Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the elliptical shape.
Claim 20: The second interpretation combination discloses the shoulder having a flat shape lying in the horizontal direction having an elliptical shape (see second annotated fig. 2b above and annotated fig. 19 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Gregory Pickett can be reached on (571)272-4560. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights