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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 12 are amended.
Drawings
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:
The specification recites “As shown at FIGs 4 and 5, […] inner cap 5” but the drawing fails to shows/disclose this limitation.
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. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueret (US 20070189841) in view of Geithmann (US 20150001172), Hopley (GB 2105693) and Yoshida (US 9181000).
Regarding claim 1, Gueret discloses, A collar for removable attachment (para 124) to a bottle (2) , the collar comprising a collar body for operably coupling the collar to the bottle, the collar body having an annular skirt (See annotated fig. below) projecting downwardly and positioned circumferentially around the radial extent of the collar body.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gueret discloses the collar body being attached to the bottle body by friction fit (18 and 19 are friction fitted Fig. 2) instead of inwardly facing threads. Geithmann shows that threads was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Geithmann represents evidence that threads were art-recognized equivalent structures for friction fit (Para 35). Therefore, because these two attachment mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute threads for friction fit. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
As a result of the modification, Gueret as modified would have the collar body having an annular skirt projecting downwardly from the inwardly facing threads
However, Gueret does not disclose a flexible ring having first and second buttons diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge of the bottle in a closed configuration of the two-piece collar with respect to the bottle; wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration.
Hopley discloses, a flexible ring (8) having first and second buttons (“S”; Fig. 2) diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab (9) positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge (10) of the bottle in a closed configuration of the collar with respect o the bottle , wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration (see page 2, lines 35-47 and figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a flexible ring having first and second buttons diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge of the bottle in a closed configuration, wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the two-piece collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration as taught by Hopley for the purpose of creating a child proof closure while also improving the securement between the collar and the bottle neck.
However, Gueret does not disclose, the annular skirt including a first notch and a second notch diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt.
Yoshida discloses, a collar comprising annular skirt (3a) including a first notch (12) and a second notch (12) diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body ( 13 goes through 12) and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt (13 goes through notch 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gueret to incorporate annular skirt including a first notch and a second notch diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt as taught by Yoshida for the purpose of improving the childproof mechanism by exposing only part of flexible ring can needs to be pushed to open the system.
As a result of the modification, Gueret as modified would have two-piece collar comprising: a collar body having an annular skirt (Yoshida; 3a) including a first notch and a second notch (12)and a flexible ring (Hopley), the flexible ring having first and second buttons (S).
The limitation “wherein the two-piece collar is configured for passage of a flowable product therethrough with the two-piece collar in the closed configuration and , in the closed configuration, the collar the abutment of the at least one ring tab against the at least one stop lug ridge prevents rotation of the two-piece collar with respect to the bottle, and wherein in the open configuration, the two-piece collar is removed from the bottle” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Gueret as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See MPEP 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Gueret as modified discloses, the bottle includes two stop lugs (Hopley; 10) and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs (Hopley; 9).
Regarding claim 4, Gueret as modified discloses, the two stop lugs are diametrically oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are diametrically oppositely positioned on the flexible ring (Hopley ; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Gueret as modified discloses, the flexible ring deforms from at least approximately a circular shape to a non-circular shape as pressure is applied at the first and second buttons and returns to at least approximately the circular shape as pressure is released (Hopley; page 2, lines 35-47 and figures).
Regarding claim 6, Gueret as modified discloses, the non-circular shape is at least approximately an ellipse, the at least one ring tab is at a vertex of the ellipse, and the first and second buttons are at first and second co-vertexes of the ellipse (Hopley; see page 2, lines 35-47 and fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Gueret as modified discloses the bottle includes two stop lugs (Hopley; 10) and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs (Hopley; 9) , and wherein the two stop lugs are oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are oppositely positioned on the flexible ring (Hopley; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Gueret discloses, A collared container(Fig. 1, 2) , comprising: a bottle (2) and an applicator (3) removably attached (para 134) to the bottle by way of a collar (10), wherein with the closed configuration the collar is attached to the bottle (para 130) , and wherein with the open configuration the collar is removed from the bottle (when the collar comes off) ;wherein the collar is configured for passage of a flowable product therethrough with the container in the closed configuration (product comes through chimney 19).
Gueret discloses the collar body being attached to the bottle body by friction fit (18 and 19 are friction fitted Fig. 2) instead of inwardly facing threads. Geithmann shows that threads was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Geithmann represents evidence that threads were art-recognized equivalent structures for friction fit (Para 35). Therefore, because these two attachment mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute threads for friction fit. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
As a result of the modification, Gueret as modified would have the collar body having an annular skirt projecting downwardly from the inwardly facing threads
However, Gueret does not disclose a flexible ring having first and second buttons diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge of the bottle in a closed configuration of the two-piece collar with respect to the bottle; wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration.
Hopley discloses, a flexible ring (8) having first and second buttons (“S”; Fig. 2) diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab (9) positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge (10) of the bottle in a closed configuration of the collar with respect o the bottle , wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration (see page 2, lines 35-47 and figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a flexible ring having first and second buttons diametrically opposite each other, the flexible ring further including at least one ring tab positioned for abutment against at least one stop lug ridge of the bottle in a closed configuration, wherein pressure applied radially inwardly against the first and second buttons deforms the flexible ring and moves the at least one ring tab to a position radially outward past a radial position of the at least one stop lug ridge, permitting rotation of the two-piece collar with respect to the bottle from the closed configuration to an open configuration as taught by Hopley for the purpose of creating a child proof closure while also improving the securement between the collar and the bottle neck.
However, Gueret does not disclose, the annular skirt including a first notch and a second notch diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt.
Yoshida discloses, a collar comprising annular skirt (3a) including a first notch (12) and a second notch (12) diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body ( 13 goes through 12) and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt (13 goes through notch 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gueret to incorporate annular skirt including a first notch and a second notch diametrically opposite each other, each extending radially through the annular skirt, flexible ring movably coupled to the collar body and received radially inward within the annular skirt, the flexible ring having first and second buttons positioned to be received within the first and second notches and extend radially outwardly through the first and second notches protruding past the annular skirt as taught by Yoshida for the purpose of improving the childproof mechanism by exposing only part of flexible ring can needs to be pushed to open the system.
As a result of the modification, Gueret as modified would have two-piece collar comprising: a collar body having an annular skirt (Yoshida; 3a) including a first notch and a second notch (12)and a flexible ring (Hopley), the flexible ring having first and second buttons (S).
Regarding claim 9, Gueret as modified discloses, discloses the two collar is removably attached to the bottle for removable attachment of the applicator to the bottle .
Regarding claim 10, Gueret discloses, the applicator is selected from a group consisting of: a porous applicator, a brush applicator, a pump applicator, a sponge applicator (50 is made of foam) , a roller ball applicator, and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Gueret does not explicitly disclose, the bottle includes two stop lugs and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs.
Hopley discloses, the bottle includes two stop lugs (10) and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs (9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gueret to incorporate bottle that includes two stop lugs and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs as taught by Hopley for the purpose of preventing over screwing (Page 1, lines 30-33) while making the container child proof.
Regarding claim 12, Gueret as modified discloses, the two stop lugs are oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are oppositely positioned on the flexible ring (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Gueret as modified discloses, the flexible ring deforms from at least approximately a circular shape to a non-circular shape as pressure is applied at the first and second buttons and returns to at least approximately the circular shape as pressure is released (Hopley; page 2, lines 35-47 and figures).
Regarding claim 14, Gueret as modified discloses the non-circular shape is at least approximately an ellipse, the at least one ring tab is at a vertex of the ellipse, and the first and second buttons are at first and second co-vertexes of the ellipse(page 2, lines 35-47 and fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, Gueret does not explicitly disclose the bottle includes two stop lugs and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs, and wherein the two stop lugs are oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are oppositely positioned on the flexible ring.
Hopley discloses, bottle that includes two stop lugs (10) and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs (9) and wherein the two stop lugs are oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are oppositely positioned on the flexible ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gueret to have bottle includes two stop lugs and the flexible ring includes two ring tabs, and wherein the two stop lugs are oppositely positioned on the bottle and the two ring tabs are oppositely positioned on the flexible ring as taught by Hopley for the purpose of preventing over screwing (Page 1, lines 30-33) while making the container child proof.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueret- Geithmann Hopley-Yoshida as applied to claim 1 in view of Enterline (US 20200407130).
Regarding claim 2, Gueret as modified does not disclose, the two-piece collar includes at least one body tab to movably couple the flexible ring with the collar body.
Enterline discloses, two-piece collar includes at least one body tab (See annotated fig. below) to movably couple the ring with the collar body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gueret to incorporate two-piece collar includes at least one body tab to movably couple the ring with the collar body as taught by Enterline for the purpose of preventing the ring from coming out.
As a result, Gueret as modified would have two-piece collar includes at least one body tab to movably couple the flexible ring with the collar body.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the limitations as amended to that the examiner replies that the prior art in view of newly incorporated prior art Yoshida discloses all the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights