DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claimed limitation “a second inner cylindrical wall”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lohrman et al. 7,832,579.
Lohrman et al. disclose a closure (150), which comprises a first longitudinal axis; an overcap (164) comprises a body (168) configured to couple to a container neck of a container as seen in Figure 40, the body defining a first opening in fluid communication with a storage compartment in the container, the body comprising a first inner cylindrical wall (182) that extends downward into the container neck, wherein the first inner cylindrical wall (182) is centered on the first longitudinal axis as seen in Figure 40; and a lid (160) pivotally coupled to the body via a hinge (166); and an insert (40i) interfacing with the body thereby frictionally engaging the insert with the overcap as seen in Figure 40, the insert comprises a second inner cylindrical wall (56i) configured to engage an interior of the container neck as seen in Figure 39, a cover (35i) detachably coupled to the second inner cylindrical wall, and a pull tab (71i) coupled to the cover, the second inner cylindrical wall comprising a first inner surface that faces towards the first longitudinal axis, wherein the pull tab circumferentially extends around a second longitudinal axis that is not colinear with the first longitudinal axis as seen in Figure 40; the cover configured to detach from the first inner cylindrical wall in response to a user pulling on the pull tab (col. 23, ll. 10-28); the insert comprises a first outer cylindrical wall configured to couple to an exterior of the container neck opposite the interior of the container neck, the first outer cylindrical wall further from the first longitudinal axis than the first inner cylindrical wall, the first outer cylindrical wall comprises helical threading (140) configured to couple the insert to the container neck as seen in Figure 39; the first outer cylindrical wall comprising a first outer surface facing away from the first longitudinal axis, the second inner cylindrical wall interfacing with the first inner cylindrical wall, the body comprising a second outer cylindrical wall interfacing with the first outer cylindrical wall as seen in Figure 40; the second inner cylindrical wall defining a second opening centered on the first longitudinal axis, and the first inner cylindrical wall defining the first opening; the second inner cylindrical wall interfacing with the first inner cylindrical wall as seen in Figure 40; wherein the pull tab extends from a first end to a second end, each of which are rigidly coupled to the cover as seen in Figure 40; wherein the pull tab is at least partially between the first opening and the storage compartment of the container as seen in Figure 40; wherein the cover is centered on the first longitudinal axis as seen in Figure 40; wherein the lid pivotally actuates between a closed position and an open position with respect to the body, wherein the lid blocks the first opening when the lid is in the closed position and the lid does not block the first opening when the lid is in the open position as seen in Figure 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 6-7, 15 and19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohrman et al. 7,832,579.
Lohrman et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the first opening defines a first diameter with respect to the first longitudinal axis, the pull tab defines a second diameter with respect to the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first diameter is at least 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is between 10% and 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is at least 10% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is at least 5% bigger than the second diameter. Lohrman et al. disclose in Figure 40, the first opening defines a first diameter with respect to the first longitudinal axis, the pull tab defines a second diameter with respect to the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first diameter is bigger than the second diameter as seen in Figure 40. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the closure of Lohrman et al. to have the first diameter being bigger by at least 20% than the second diameter or the first diameter being bigger between 10% and 20% than the second diameter or the first diameter being bigger by at least 10% than the second diameter or the first diameter being at least 5% bigger than the second diameter, because applicants have not disclosed that having the first diameter at least 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter between 10% and 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter at least 10% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter at least 5% bigger than the second diameter, provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicants’ closure to perform equally well with the closure of Lohrman et al., because the closure of Lohrman et al. is for dispensing a product. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the closure of Lohrman et al. to obtain the invention specified in claims 6-7, 15 and 19.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicants' arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Lohrman does not disclose "the body comprising a first inner cylindrical wall that extends downward into the container neck, wherein the first inner cylindrical wall is centered on the first longitudinal axis" and "the pull tab circumferentially extends around a second longitudinal axis that is not colinear with the first longitudinal axis. The examiner disagrees. Lohrman et al. explicitly disclose the body (168) having a first inner cylindrical wall (182) that extends downward into the container neck, wherein the first inner cylindrical wall is centered on the first longitudinal axis" and "the pull tab (71i) circumferentially extends around a second longitudinal axis that is not colinear with the first longitudinal axis (as seen in Figure 40 and further, the length of element 182, the pull tab (71i) and the first inner cylindrical wall are all different in length as seen in Figure 40). Therefore, the claimed limitation, the pull tab extends around a second longitudinal axis that is not colinear with the first longitudinal axis is fairly met in Figure 40. Applicants further argue that Lohrman does not disclose "not more than a single wall of the overcap is radially further from the first longitudinal axis than the cover and further stated that the overcap of Lohrman appears to include at least two walls further from the central axis than sealing membrane 35i, i.e., plug 182, and the outermost wall of the overcap (e.g., the wall pointed to by element 176). Accordingly, Lohrman does not disclose "not more than a single wall of the overcap is radially further from the first longitudinal axis than the cover,". The examiner disagrees. First, the closure of Lohrman et al. is only one structure. Secondly, applicants’ lid (140) comes down onto the outer wall of the overcap appears to be similar of element (178) of Lohrman et al. and consistent with applicants claimed language “single wall”. Finally, as there is an open transitional phrase, other structures are permitted as “single” is not exclusionary. In response to applicants’ argument that there is no motivation to combine Lohrman et al., the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lohrman et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention (as noted above), except that the first opening defines a first diameter with respect to the first longitudinal axis, the pull tab defines a second diameter with respect to the second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first diameter is at least 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is between 10% and 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is at least 10% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter is at least 5% bigger than the second diameter. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, would modify the closure of Lohrman et al. to have the first diameter being bigger by at least 20% than the second diameter or the first diameter being bigger between 10% and 20% than the second diameter or the first diameter being bigger by at least 10% than the second diameter or the first diameter being at least 5% bigger than the second diameter for dispensing. Further, applicants have not disclosed that having the first diameter at least 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter between 10% and 20% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter at least 10% bigger than the second diameter or the first diameter at least 5% bigger than the second diameter, provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the closure of Lohrman et al. to obtain the invention specified in claims 6-7, 15 and 19.
Conclusion
9. Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 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, Paul R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754