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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Supplemental Amendment
The Supplemental Amendment dated 4/9/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelsbach et al. (US 2013/0256336) in view of Chen (US 2011/0147414).
Regarding claim 1, Himmelsbach et al. substantially disclose the claimed pouring element including a main body (2) with a flange (5), a hollow cylindrical spout (7), which defines a central axis (15), and a closure part formed in the spout (16), which runs orthogonal to the central axis (Fig. 1), with a central region (thicker central portion of 16) and a weakening zone (17) running in a ring shape around the central region (Paragraph 0039), wherein a conical ring-shaped intermediate region is formed between the weakening zone and the central region (tapering region where 16 transitions to 17; see annotated Fig. 5 below), a hollow cylindrical cutting element (3; Figs. 1, 10-13) movably guided in the spout (Paragraph 0038) with at least one cutting tooth (14) for severing the weakening zone to open the spout and composite package, a reclosable screw cap (4), which serves to drive the cutting element when the composite package is opened for the first time (Paragraph 0038).
PNG
media_image1.png
297
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Himmelsbach et al.
Himmelsbach et al. is silent regarding the cutting element overlapping both the weakening zone and the intermediate region in a projection direction parallel to the central axis.
Chen teaches a cutting element (52) with a cutting tooth (527), and a closure part (44) with an intermediate region (442 has a thickness decreasing in the radial direction, thus forming a conical, ring-shaped region; Paragraph 0023; Figs. 6-8) connecting a thicker central region with a weakening zone (where separation occurs at the outer periphery, see annotated Fig. 7 below and Fig. 8 wherein 442 remains attached to the central region after separation) where the cutting element overlaps both the weakening zone and the intermediate region in a projection direction parallel to the central axis (see annotated Fig. 7 below). Chen teaches that this arrangement improves the cutting of the closure (“the tapering design of the peripheral area 442 guides the cutting action and facilitates the cutting,” Paragraph 0032).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Chen
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the cutting element and closure part of Himmelsbach et al. so that the cutting element overlaps both the weakening zone and the intermediate region in a projection direction parallel to the central axis, as taught by Chen, in order to guide and facilitate the cutting of the closure. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized through the teaching of Chen that simply extending the intermediate region of Himmelsbach et al. a small amount would provide the improved cutting of the teaching, and that this modification could be implemented with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Himmelsbach et al. further disclose that the weakening zone has less than 50% of the height of the central region measured parallel to the central axis (apparent from annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claims 3-4, Himmelsbach et al. further disclose that the weakening zone extends between an inner radius and an outer radius orthogonal to the central axis (see annotated Fig. 5 above). It is apparent from the annotated figure above that the difference between the inner radius and the outer radius may be at least twice as large, measured parallel to the central axis, as the height of the weakening zone.
Regarding claim 5, Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen is silent regarding an inner radius of the hollow cylindrical cutting element comprising a maximum of 95% of the inner radius of the weakening zone. Instead, Chen teaches that the cutting element is guided by contact with the tapering intermediate region, as described above regarding claim 1. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen by causing an inner radius of the hollow cylindrical cutting element to be 95% or less of the inner radius of the weakening zone. Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular dimension (see page 6, lines 25-27 of the Specification, which merely states “an improved effect” is enabled by the overlapping of the cutting element and intermediate region) and it appears that the device of Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of dimensions.
Regarding claim 6, Himmelsbach et al. further disclose that the weakening zone connects directly to the spout (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Himmelsbach et al. further disclose that an inside surface of the cutting tooth includes a ground section at an end facing the weakening zone (see 14 in Fig. 5) and that the ground section of the cutting tooth rotates about the central axis and continuously transitions from a chamfered inner surface into an inner surface parallel to the central axis (see chamfered edge in Fig. 5 and inner surface of 3 parallel to central axis in Figs. 1, 10-13).
Regarding claim 11, Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen is silent regarding an amount of the surface of the intermediate region facing the cutting element being covered by a projection of the cutting element parallel to the central axis. Instead, Chen teaches that the benefit of the tapering intermediate region is that it guides the cutting element, as described above regarding claim 1, and thus there would be no apparent reason to extend the intermediate region a significant amount beyond the area of contact with the cutting element. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen by causing at least 30% of a surface of the intermediate region facing the cutting element to be covered by a projection of the cutting element parallel to the central axis. Applicant appears to have demonstrated no criticality of any particular amount of coverage (see page 8, lines 20-21 of the Specification, which merely states that “such a coverage is useful in order to further intensify the effect of the invention”) and it appears that the device of Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of dimensions.
Regarding claim 12, Himmelsbach et al. further disclose that the cutting element has two cutting teeth (Figs. 10-13).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barron (US 2014/0137717).
Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen renders the pouring element according to claim 1 obvious, as described above. Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen do not explicitly disclose that the cutting tooth extends at an end facing the weakening zone in a circumferential direction in a plane orthogonal to the central axis.
Barron teaches a rotatable cutting device for a package closure with a cutting tooth (101) that extends at an end (1011, 1012) facing the closure in a circumferential direction (Figs. 3-4) in a plane orthogonal to the central axis (Paragraph 0013). Barron teaches that this blunted tip design results in a stable tooth tip that achieves a smooth, clean cutting line (Paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the invention of Himmelsbach et al., modified by Chen as described above, with the tooth tip configuration taught by Barron in order to provide a stable tooth tip that produces a clean cut in the closure.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser et al. (US 2019/0144158) in view of Himmelsbach et al. and Chen.
Hauser et al. disclose a composite package (P) for liquid foodstuffs having a pouring element (A) integrated into a gable region (1) of the composite package (Paragraphs 0034-0035, Fig. 1). Hauser et al. do not disclose a pouring element according to claim 1, or that the gable region has polyhedral gable surfaces, which are correspondingly connected to a polyhedral flange of the pouring element.
Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen renders the pouring element according to claim 1 obvious, as described above. Himmelsbach et al. teaches that the disclosed pouring element is intended for use in packaging for liquid foods (see the Abstract), and teaches a configuration having a polyhedral flange (5’’, Figs. 3-4) for connecting to correspondingly configured packaging (6, Paragraphs 0041-0042). Himmelsbach et al. teach that the polyhedral flange design provides improved connection to the packaging (Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the composite package of Hauser et al. with the modified pouring element taught by Himmelsbach et al. in view of Chen as a simple substitution for the pouring element disclosed by Hauser et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of performing the substitution with predictable results. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the package with polyhedral gable surfaces correspondingly connected to the polyhedral flange of the alternative pouring element configuration taught by Himmelsbach et al., similarly modified in view of Chen, in order to provide an improved connection between the packaging and the flange.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Examiner notes that the arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been disregarded, as they appear to be superseded by the subsequently filed amendment and Remarks). In the Remarks dated 4/9/2026, Applicant states: “neither Himmelsbach nor Chen, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest wherein "the cutting element overlaps both the weakening zone and the intermediate region in a projection direction parallel to the central axis" as required by amended independent claim 1” (Remarks, Page 7, first full paragraph).
Examiner agrees that Himmelsbach et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed relationship between the cutting element and the closure part. However, Examiner disagrees with respect to the Chen reference, as detailed in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the Chen reference, Applicant first states: “the cutting element overlaps only the central region (e.g., bottom wall 44) in a projection direction parallel to the central axis” (Remarks, Page 8, first paragraph). When viewed alongside the accompanying reproduction of Fig. 7 of Chen, it appears that Applicant is misinterpreting the cross-sectional view to refer to a cutting tooth that lies beyond the cross-sectional plane (see Fig. 5 for reference; see also Examiner’s annotated Fig. 7 in the above rejection for the projection in accordance with claim 1).
Applicant further states: “As shown in FIG. 8 of Chen, after the cutting element cuts the thinner portion 442, the intermediate region between thinner portion 442 and bottom wall 44 remains intact because the cutting element does not cut both the weakening zone and the intermediate region. Accordingly, Chen fails to teach or suggest "wherein the cutting element overlaps both the weakening zone and the intermediate region in a projection direction parallel to the central axis." (Remarks, Page 8, second paragraph - emphasis added).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a cutting element required to cut both the weakening zone and the intermediate region) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that the claim describes a structural arrangement of the cutting element and the closure part, which does not necessarily result in both the weakening zone and the intermediate region being “cut” (according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s Remarks). Examiner further notes that support for Applicant’s interpretation of the claim was not found in the specification. Page 1, lines 17-18, describes “at least one cutting tooth for severing the weakening zone” and Page 5, lines 23-25, describes “the cutting element and the closure part are thus designed such that the cutting tooth strikes the intermediate region when the composite package is opened for the first time and exerts force on it” (i.e., it is not clear how the intermediate region would be considered to be “cut”). It appears that the intermediate region is instead intended to guide the cutting of the weakened zone, as taught by Chen (see above rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of closure devices representing the state of the art and/or features relevant to the claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights