DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 and 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,139,112 (Cooke) in view of US 5,320,233 (Welch) and US 4,053,077 (DeFelice).
Regarding claim 15, Cooke teaches an assembly comprising:
a jar (20) made of aluminum or glass (not disclosed) defining an interior cavity (unlabeled inner volume), the jar having a first end (unlabeled top) and a second end (unlabeled bottom) opposite the first end, the jar having an opening (24) defined in the first end, the first end having an upper extension (unlabeled neck; portion of 20 located above where 22 is pointing in Figure 2) that extends towards the second end, wherein the upper extension includes a first thread (22) extending at least partially around an outer surface of the upper extension (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein the first thread includes a detent (32), wherein:
the first thread includes a first thread end and a second thread end (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the second thread end of the upper extension is closer to the second end of the jar than the first thread end (second thread end is closer to the container bottom as seen in the annotated Figure), and the detent is positioned at the second thread end (see location of 32 in the annotated Figure 1 below, noting the distance is measured along the helical path of the thread, and not point-to-point distance);
a lid (10) made of aluminum or glass (not disclosed) defining an interior cavity (space inside of the cap), wherein the interior cavity includes a second thread (16) extending at least partially around an inner surface of the interior cavity (see interior of lid 10 in Figure 1), wherein the second thread includes a locking nib (26) configured to engage the detent of the first thread, wherein:
the second thread on the lid includes a first thread end and a second thread end (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the second thread end of the lid is closer to the second end of the jar when assembled than the first thread end of the second thread (second thread end is closer to the container bottom), and the locking nib is positioned at the second thread end of the second thread (see location of 26 compared to second thread end in the annotated Figure 1 above), and
the second thread on the lid includes an upper side and a lower side (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the lower side is closer to the second end of the jar when assembled than the upper side of the second thread, and the locking nib is positioned at the upper side of the second thread (see location of 26 on the upper side of the thread in the annotated Figure 1 below); and
a sealing liner (18) arranged within the interior cavity of the lid, wherein, upon twisting the lid onto the jar such that the second thread engages the first thread (col. 3, lines 43-49), the first end of the jar engages the sealing liner and compresses the sealing liner (col. 3, lines 49-53), wherein sealing liner at least partially decompresses when the ends of the first thread and the second thread are in engagement with each other (col. 3, lines 59-64, noting that the upward movement of the cap will inherently decompress the liner to some degree; further noting col. 4, lines 1-4, detailing the reverse effect that during removal, the cap is pushed downwardly, which causes compression of the liner 18).
wherein the first thread and the second thread are double lead threads (not taught).
Cooke fails to teach:
(a) the jar and lid being made of aluminum or glass; and
(b) the first thread and the second thread are double lead threads.
Regarding limitation (a), Welch, analogous to containers with threaded closures, teaches it is known to form the container of glass (col. 2, lines 65-66) and the closure of metal such as aluminum (col. 3, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the container of Cooke of glass, and the closure of aluminum, as taught by Welch, motivated by the use of suitable materials, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”. 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding limitation (b), DeFelice, analogous to threaded closures with child safety mechanisms, teaches a double lead thread (12; col. 1, lines 51-52) to mate with a corresponding double lead thread on the closure (26; see col. 1, lines 58-59).
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 container of Cooke, providing double lead threads as taught by DeFelice, motivated by the use of an analogous thread suitable for child safety, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
5. Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0346813 (Campbell) in view of US 2006/0186081 (Reed).
Regarding claim 20, Campbell teaches an assembly comprising:
a jar (100) made of a material (aluminum; para. [0005]) and defining an interior cavity (interior volume of jar 104), wherein the jar comprises a body (104) and an extension (unlabeled; read as the threaded neck on which thread 304 is disposed in Figure 3) extending from the body, wherein the extension defines an opening into the interior cavity (at the distal rim of container 104), and wherein the extension provides a first thread (304);
a lid (102) made of a material (aluminum; para. [0005]) and defining an interior cavity to receive the extension, wherein the interior cavity provides a second thread (302) to contact the first thread; and
a sealing liner arranged within the interior cavity of the lid (not shown but suggested in the last sentence of para. [0028]; taught to be formed of foam in para. [0037]), wherein the sealing liner is configured to provide a seal between the jar and the lid based on the jar and lid being coupled together via the first and second threads (not taught),
wherein the material is aluminum or glass (see all parts formed of aluminum in para. [0005]).
Reed, analogous to metallic closures, teaches a closure construction which includes a foamed liner (314) for sealing against the container upon application thereon of the closure (para. [0019]).
Examiner notes that while Campbell shows an inverted U-shaped channel to receive the container rim, it would be obvious to modify this portion of the container, noting that such is not present in Reed, in order to ensure the full sealing function of the Reed liner.
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 jar of Campbell, providing a closure and liner as taught by Reed, motivated by the benefit of sealing the container, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 21, the body exhibits a first outer diameter (see outer diameter at 104) and the extension exhibits a second outer diameter less than the first outer diameter (see outer diameter on the unlabeled extension where thread 304 is disposed in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, Cooke in view of Welch as applied above fails to teach that the lid exhibits a third outer diameter that is equal to the first outer diameter (explicitly shown in Figure 2 where 102 and 104 have the same outer diameter).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1, 3-10, 13, 14, and 16-19 allowed.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 3-10, 13, 14, and 16-19 depend, Cooke in view of Welsch as previously applied fails to teach the first thread includes a detent and the second thread includes a locking nib configured to engage the detent of the first thread, and wherein the locking nib has a height less than one half a width of the second thread. There is no evidence of the functionality of the child safety feature in Cooke when formed of the materials disclosed by Welsch, nor is there any teaching of the claimed height of the locking nib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733