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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 and 11-16, in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter et al. (US 2017/0327673 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Coulter teaches a twist crown cap, wherein a sealing element is formed as a deposit on the inner surface of the container closure [0017], and a PVC-free sealing composition for twist crowns [0018], wherein the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], wherein the compound comprises between 2% to 25% low-density polyethylene, LDPE, wherein more preferably the material comprises between 10% to 20% LDPE [0021], wherein the compound comprises between 1% to 10% sodium sulfite, and preferably the material comprises between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite [0026] that is an oxygen-scavenging component [0013, 0015], which reads on a closure for a receptacle, the closure made of metal with a sealing insert that is arranged in the receptacle closure in such a way that it comes into contact with the mouth of the receptacle when the receptacle closure is positioned on the receptacle, wherein the sealing insert comprises a sealing compound that includes at least 2% and less than or equal to 25% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound and a content of greater than or equal to 1% and less than or equal to 10% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound, said oxygen-absorbing compound comprising sodium sulfite.
Coulter does not teach with sufficient specificity that the sealing compound includes at least 10% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Coulter’s low-density polyethylene, LDPE in Coulter’s sealing compound to be between 10% to 20% LDPE. The proposed modification would read on the sealing compound includes at least 10% and at most 20% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s low-density polyethylene, LDPE in Coulter’s sealing compound that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], that the compound comprises between 2% to 25% low-density polyethylene, LDPE, and that more preferably the material comprises between 10% to 20% LDPE [0021]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Coulter does not teach with sufficient specificity that the sealing compound includes a content of more than 2% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Coulter’s sodium sulfite in Coulter’s sealing compound to be between 2% to 10% or between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite. The proposed modification would read on the sealing compound includes a content of more than 2% and less than or equal to 10% or more than 4% and less than or equal to 8% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s sodium sulfite in Coulter’s sealing compound that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], that the compound comprises between 1% to 10% sodium sulfite, and that preferably the material comprises between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite [0026] that is an oxygen-scavenging component [0013, 0015]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Coulter teaches that the compound comprises between 10% to 40% thermoplastic elastomers based on styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) [0023], which optionally reads on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the sealing compound further includes at least one SEBS as claimed, said styrene block copolymer being present in a proportion of 10 to 40% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound.
Coulter does not teach a specific embodiment in which the sealing compound further includes at least one SEBS or SIBS styrene block copolymer, said styrene block copolymer being present in a proportion of 10 to 40% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Coulter’s styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) to modify Coulter’s sealing compound in Coulter’s amount that is between 10% to 40%. The proposed modification would read on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the sealing compound further includes at least one SEBS styrene block copolymer as claimed, said styrene block copolymer being present in a proportion of 10 to 40% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 10% to 40% thermoplastic elastomers based on styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) [0023], which would have been beneficial for modifying thermoplastic and/or elastomeric properties of Coulter’s sealing compound, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Coulter teaches that the compound comprises between 20% to 45% medicinal white oil, and particularly preferably, the material comprises between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil [0024], which reads on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the sealing compound includes at content of between 20 to 45% or 30 to 40% by weight oil relative to the total weight of the sealing compound.
Coulter does not teach a specific embodiment in which the sealing compound further includes a content of 5 to 40% by weight oil relative to use Coulter’s medicinal white oil to modify Coulter’s sealing compound and to select the amount of Coulter’s medicinal white oil in Coulter’s sealing compound to be between 20% to 40% or between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Coulter’s medicinal white oil to modify Coulter’s sealing compound, and to select the amount of Coulter’s medicinal white oil to be between 20% to 40% or between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil. The proposed modification would read on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the sealing compound includes at content of between 20 to 40% or 30 to 40% by weight oil relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 20% to 45% medicinal white oil, and particularly preferably, the material comprises between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil [0024], which would have been beneficial for modifying lubrication of Coulter’s sealing compound, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s medicinal white oil that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Coulter teaches that the compound comprises between 10% to 40% thermoplastic elastomers based on styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) [0023], which optionally reads on said sealing insert further comprising, at one or more comonomers, one or more of butene as claimed.
Coulter does not teach a specific embodiment of said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of butene, hexene, or octene. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Coulter’s styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) to modify Coulter’s sealing compound in Coulter’s amount that is between 10% to 40%. The proposed modification would read on said sealing insert further comprising, at one or more comonomers, one or more of butene as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 10% to 40% thermoplastic elastomers based on styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) [0023], which would have been beneficial for modifying thermoplastic and/or elastomeric properties of Coulter’s sealing compound, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, Coulter teaches that the compound comprises between 10% to 30% polyethylene (linear low-density polyethylene, LLDPE), preferably the material comprises between 15% to 25% LLDPE [0025], which reads on said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of LLDPE.
Coulter does not teach a specific embodiment of said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of LLDPE or OBC. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Coulter’s polyethylene (linear low-density polyethylene, LLDPE) to modify Coulter’s sealing compound in Coulter’s amount that is between 10% to 30% or between 15% to 25% LLDPE. The proposed modification would read on said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of LLDPE as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing a species of polyethylene that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 10% to 30% polyethylene (linear low-density polyethylene, LLDPE), preferably the material comprises between 15% to 25% LLDPE [0025]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claims 1-3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern et al. (US 2018/0057670 A1, cited in IDS) in view of Coulter et al. (US 2017/0327673 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Kern teaches a container closure of metal for a container for accommodating beverages or food that has a mouth opening to be closed by said container closure, wherein the container closure is provided with a sealing insert that is arranged in the container in such a manner that it closes the mount opening with sealing action when the container closure is fitted onto the container [0072], which reads on a closure for a receptacle, the closure made of metal with a sealing insert that is arranged in the receptacle closure in such a way that it comes into contact with the mouth of the receptacle when the receptacle closure is positioned on the receptacle as claimed. Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains preferably up to 60% by weight, more preferably up to 55% by weight, and particularly preferably up to 50% by weight of PE-LD [0081], which reads on wherein the sealing insert comprises a sealing compound that includes up to 60% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Kern teaches that the sealing inset may contain an oxygen-binding compound (scavenger), more particularly sodium sulfite [0097], which optionally reads on the sealing compound that includes a content of more than 0% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound, said oxygen-absorbing compound comprising sodium sulfite.
Kern does not teach with sufficient specificity that the sealing compound includes at least 10% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Kern’s PE-LD in Kern’s sealing insert to be at least 10% and up to 60% by weight of Kern’s PE-LD. The proposed modification would read on the sealing compound includes at least 10% and at most 60% by weight LDPE relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s PE-LD in Kern’s sealing insert that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains preferably up to 60% by weight, more preferably up to 55% by weight, and particularly preferably up to 50% by weight of PE-LD [0081]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Kern does not teach that the sealing compound includes a content of more than 2% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound, said oxygen-absorbing compound comprising sodium sulfite. However, Coulter teaches that a compound comprises between 1% to 10% sodium sulfite, and preferably the material comprises between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite [0026] that is an oxygen-scavenging component [0013, 0015], wherein the compound is a sealing compound for twist crowns and is a sealing element [0019], wherein the compound comprises between 2% to 25% low-density polyethylene, LDPE, wherein more preferably the material comprises between 10% to 20% LDPE [0021], where in a twist crown cap, the sealing element is formed as a deposit on the inner surface of the container closure [0017], and wherein the PVC-free sealing composition is for twist crowns [0018]. Kern and Coulter are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a closure for a receptacle, the closure made of metal with a sealing insert that is arranged in the receptacle closure in such a way that it comes into contact with the mouth of the receptacle when the receptacle closure is positioned on the receptacle, wherein the sealing inset comprises a sealing compound that includes LDPE and at least one oxygen-absorbing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Kern’s sodium sulfite in Kern’s sealing insert to be between 2% to 10% or between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite, as suggested by Coulter. The proposed modification would read on the sealing compound includes a content of more than 2% and less than or equal to 10% or more than 4% and less than or equal to 8% by weight of at least one oxygen-absorbing compound as claimed, said oxygen-absorbing compound comprising sodium sulfite as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s sodium sulfite that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Kern teaches that the sealing inset may contain an oxygen-binding compound (scavenger), more particularly sodium sulfite [0097], and because Coulter teaches that a compound comprises between 1% to 10% sodium sulfite, and preferably the material comprises between 4% to 8% sodium sulfite [0026] that is an oxygen-scavenging component [0013, 0015], and that the compound is a sealing compound for twist crowns and is a sealing element [0019]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains up to 65% by weight of SIBS [0081] that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene [0076], which reads on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the compound further includes SIBS styrene block copolymer as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kern teaches that the polymer compound that forms the sealing insert preferably contains at least one additive such as a plasticizer, e.g. white oil, wherein the plasticizer content is preferably less than 70% by weight, more preferably less than 60% by weight, even more preferably less than 50% by weight, particularly preferably less than 40% by weight, especially less than 30% by weight, especially less than 20% by weight, and especially less than 10% by weight [0082], which reads on the closure according to Claim 1, in which the sealing compound further includes a content of less than 70%, less than 60%, less than 50%, less than 40%, less than 30%, less than 20%, or less than 10% by weight oil relative to the total weight of the sealing compound.
Kern does not teach a specific embodiment in which the sealing compound further includes a content of 5 to 40% by weight oil relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil to modify Kern’s sealing insert, and to select the amount of Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil in Kern’s sealing insert to be greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 40% by weight. The proposed modification would read on in which the sealing compound further includes a content of 5 to 40% by weight oil relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kern teaches that the polymer compound that forms the sealing insert preferably contains at least one additive such as a plasticizer, e.g. white oil, wherein the plasticizer content is preferably less than 70% by weight, more preferably less than 60% by weight, even more preferably less than 50% by weight, particularly preferably less than 40% by weight, especially less than 30% by weight, especially less than 20% by weight, and especially less than 10% by weight [0082], which would have been beneficial for plasticizing Kern’s sealing insert, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains preferably up to 60% by weight, more preferably up to 55% by weight, and particularly preferably up to 50% by weight of PE-LD [0081], which reads on where LDPE is present in said sealing insert in an amount of up to 60% by weight.
Kern does not teach with sufficient specificity where LDPE is present in said sealing insert in an amount of at least 40% by weight. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Kern’s PE-LD in Kern’s sealing insert to be at least 40% and up to 60% by weight of Kern’s PE-LD. The proposed modification would read on where LDPE is present in said sealing insert in an amount of at least 40% and at most 60% by weight as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s PE-LD in Kern’s sealing insert that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains preferably up to 60% by weight, more preferably up to 55% by weight, and particularly preferably up to 50% by weight of PE-LD [0081]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains up to 65% by weight of SIBS [0081] that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene [0076], which reads on said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of butene as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains up to 65% by weight of SIBS [0081] that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene [0076], which reads on said sealing insert further comprising, as one or more comonomers, one or more of OBC as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains up to 65% by weight of SIBS [0081] that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene [0076], which reads on said styrene block copolymer being present in a proportion of up to 65% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound.
Kern does not teach with sufficient specificity that said styrene block copolymer is present in a proportion of 10 to 40% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the amount of Kern’s SIBS that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene in Kern’s sealing insert to be at least 10% and up to 40% by weight. The proposed modification would read on said styrene block copolymer being present in a proportion of 10 to 40% by weight relative to the total weight of the sealing compound as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s SIBS that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene in Kern’s sealing insert that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert because Kern teaches that the sealing insert contains up to 65% by weight of SIBS [0081] that is styrene-isobutylene-styrene [0076]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter et al. (US 2017/0327673 A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Szczesniak et al. (US 2018/0346205 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Coulter renders obvious the closure according to claim 3 as explained above. Coulter teaches that the compound comprises between 20% to 45% medicinal white oil, and particularly preferably, the material comprises between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil [0024].
Coulter does not teach that said oil comprises white oil having a kinematic viscosity at 40°C of 60 to 150 cSt. However, Szczesniak teaches medicinal white oil that has a viscosity of 70 cSt and that is present in a composition further comprising linear low-density polyethylene, styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block polymer, and polyolefin that is polyethylene/polypropylene copolymer [0214], wherein the composition is a gasket-forming material composition [0211], wherein the gasket is combined with a plastic container and a lugged metal closure that is configured to prove an air-tight seal for contents stored within the container [0001]. Coulter and Szczesniak are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a closure for a receptacle, the closure made of metal with a sealing insert that is arranged in the receptacle closure in such a way that it comes into contact with the mouth of the receptacle when the receptacle closure is positioned on the receptacle, wherein the sealing insert comprises a sealing compound that includes a polyethylene. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Coulter’s medicinal white oil to modify Coulter’s sealing compound, to select the amount of Coulter’s medicinal white oil to be between 20% to 40% or between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil, and to select the viscosity of Coulter’s medicinal white oil to be 70 cSt as suggested by Szczesniak at 40°C. The proposed modification would read on said oil comprises white oil having a kinematic viscosity at 40°C of 70 cSt as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 20% to 45% medicinal white oil, and particularly preferably, the material comprises between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil [0024], which would have been beneficial for modifying lubrication of Coulter’s sealing compound, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Coulter’s medicinal white oil that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing a viscosity for Coulter’s medicinal white oil that is suitable for Coulter’s sealing compound because Szczesniak teaches that medicinal white oil that has a viscosity of 70 cSt is beneficial for being useful in a composition further comprising linear low-density polyethylene, styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block polymer, and polyolefin that is polyethylene/polypropylene copolymer [0214], wherein the composition is a gasket-forming material composition [0211], wherein the gasket is combined with a plastic container and a lugged metal closure that is configured to prove an air-tight seal for contents stored within the container [0001], which would have been desirable for Coulter’s medicinal white oil in Coulter’s sealing compound because Coulter teaches that the sealing element is a sealing compound for twist crowns [0019], and that the compound comprises between 20% to 45% medicinal white oil, and particularly preferably, the material comprises between 30% to 40% medicinal white oil [0024].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern et al. (US 2018/0057670 A1, cited in IDS) in view of Coulter et al. (US 2017/0327673 A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Szczesniak et al. (US 2018/0346205 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kern in view of Coulter renders obvious the closure according to claim 3 as explained above. Kern teaches that the polymer compound that forms the sealing insert preferably contains at least one additive such as a plasticizer, e.g. white oil, wherein the plasticizer content is preferably less than 70% by weight, more preferably less than 60% by weight, even more preferably less than 50% by weight, particularly preferably less than 40% by weight, especially less than 30% by weight, especially less than 20% by weight, and especially less than 10% by weight [0082].
Kern does not teach that said oil comprises white oil having a kinematic viscosity at 40°C of 60 to 150 cSt. However, Szczesniak teaches medicinal white oil that has a viscosity of 70 cSt and that is present in a composition further comprising linear low-density polyethylene, styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block polymer, and polyolefin that is polyethylene/polypropylene copolymer [0214], wherein the composition is a gasket-forming material composition [0211], wherein the gasket is combined with a plastic container and a lugged metal closure that is configured to prove an air-tight seal for contents stored within the container [0001]. Kern and Szczesniak are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a closure for a receptacle, the closure made of metal with a sealing insert that is arranged in the receptacle closure in such a way that it comes into contact with the mouth of the receptacle when the receptacle closure is positioned on the receptacle, wherein the sealing insert comprises a sealing compound that includes a polyethylene. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil to modify Kern’s sealing insert, to select the amount of Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil in Kern’s sealing insert to be greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 40% by weight, and to select the viscosity of Kern’s white oil to be 70 cSt as suggested by Szczesniak at 40°C. The proposed modification would read on said oil comprises white oil having a kinematic viscosity at 40°C of 70 cSt as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kern teaches that the polymer compound that forms the sealing insert preferably contains at least one additive such as a plasticizer, e.g. white oil, wherein the plasticizer content is preferably less than 70% by weight, more preferably less than 60% by weight, even more preferably less than 50% by weight, particularly preferably less than 40% by weight, especially less than 30% by weight, especially less than 20% by weight, and especially less than 10% by weight [0082], which would have been beneficial for plasticizing Kern’s sealing insert, and because it would have been beneficial for providing an amount of Kern’s plasticizer that is white oil that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing a viscosity for Kern’s white oil that is suitable for Kern’s sealing insert because Szczesniak teaches that medicinal white oil that has a viscosity of 70 cSt is beneficial for being useful in a composition further comprising linear low-density polyethylene, styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene block polymer, and polyolefin that is polyethylene/polypropylene copolymer [0214], wherein the composition is a gasket-forming material composition [0211], wherein the gasket is combined with a plastic container and a lugged metal closure that is configured to prove an air-tight seal for contents stored within the container [0001], which would have been desirable for Kern’s white oil in Kern’s sealing insert because Kern teaches that the polymer compound that forms the sealing insert preferably contains at least one additive such as a plasticizer, e.g. white oil [0082].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights