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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
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, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi et al. (US 5875942) (hereinafter Ohmi) in view of Watts (US 2018/0346221).
Regarding Claim 1
Ohmi teaches a method of applying a closure to a container neck (below – Fig. 1 and 3), the method comprising: providing an overcap comprising a body (2) and a lid (4) pivotally coupled to the body via a hinge (3); providing an insert (1), the insert comprising: a first cylindrical wall (5); and a removable separation wall (11) coupled to a pull tab (12) and detachably coupled to the first cylindrical wall; frictionally engaging the overcap with the insert such that the overcap is biased to remain coupled to the insert, the overcap and the insert sharing a rotational axis; providing a container comprising a container neck (50); and subsequent to engaging the overcap with the insert, frictionally engaging the insert with the container neck such that the insert blocks fluid communication between an interior of the container and an exterior of the container (Col. 5, Ln. 7-15, and Col. 5, Ln. 30 – Col. 6, Ln. 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
373
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ohmi does not specifically teach sterilizing the insert subsequent to engaging the insert with the container neck.
Watts teaches method of applying a closure to a container, the method comprising: sealing the container with the closure and the subsequently sterilizing the sealed container (Paragraph [0051]).
Ohmi and Watts are analogous inventions in the field of containers having peelable inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of applying the closure to the container of Ohmi with the teachings of the sterilization process of Watts in order to provide a sterilized sealed container. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 2
Ohmi in view of Watts (hereinafter “modified Ohmi”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches insert (1) comprising a second cylindrical wall (8) radially further from the rotational axis than the first cylindrical wall (5), wherein frictionally engaging the insert with the container neck (50) comprises the second cylindrical wall engaging the container neck, as can be seen in Fig. 3 above.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches engaging the overcap and the insert prior to engaging the insert with the container neck, as can be seen in Fig. 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches the body comprises an opening that provides fluid communication between the interior of the container and the exterior of the container, the insert comprising a third cylindrical wall (30) that extends away from the container and that extends circumferentially around the rotational axis, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches the insert comprises a spout wall (14) that extends away from the removable separation wall (11), wherein the spout wall is closer to the rotational axis than the third cylindrical wall (30), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches the body (2) comprises an opening that provides fluid communication between the interior of the container and the exterior of the container, the lid (4) actuating between an open position and a closed position with respect to the body such that the lid prevents fluid communication between the interior of the container and the exterior of the container when the lid is in the closed position, and the lid does not prevent fluid communication between the interior of the container and the exterior of the container when the lid is in the open position.
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi further teaches the overcap is formed from a first material comprising LDPE (Col. 8, Ln. 50-54).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ohmi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohrman et al. (US 7832579) (hereinafter Lohrman).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Ohmi does not teach the body comprising helical threading extending inward towards the rotational axis, the threading engaging the container neck.
Lohrman teaches a method of applying a closure to a container neck (below - Fig. 10), the method comprising: providing an overcap (45) having a body; providing an insert (35a), the insert comprising a removable separation wall coupled to a pull tab (71); providing a container comprising a container neck (57a); and frictionally engaging the insert with the container neck such that the insert blocks fluid communication between an interior of the container and an exterior of the container; and wherein the body comprises helical threading (44a) extending inward towards the rotational axis, the threading engaging the container neck (Col. 14, Ln. 7-44).
PNG
media_image3.png
256
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ohmi and Lohrman are analogous inventions in the field of closures attached to the container neck having an overcap and insert. Because both Ohmi and Lohrman teach overcaps having bodies which engage the container neck, it would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute body engagement of Ohmi with the teachings of the helical threading of Lohrman to achieve the predictable result of attaching the overcap body to the container neck. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Ohmi does not teach the body comprising a J-band interfacing with the container neck to bias the overcap to remain coupled to the container neck.
Lohrman teaches a method of applying a closure to a container neck (Fig. 4), the method comprising: providing an overcap (30) having a body; providing an insert (35), the insert comprising a removable separation wall coupled to a pull tab (71); providing a container comprising a container neck; and frictionally engaging the insert with the container neck such that the insert blocks fluid communication between an interior of the container and an exterior of the container; and the body comprising a J-band (48) interfacing with the container neck to bias the overcap to remain coupled to the container neck (Col. 10, Ln. 27-48).
PNG
media_image4.png
369
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ohmi and Lohrman are analogous inventions in the field of closures attached to the container neck having an overcap and insert. Because both Ohmi and Lohrman teach overcaps having bodies which engage the container neck, it would have appeared obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute body engagement of Ohmi with the teachings of the J-band of Lohrman to achieve the predictable result of attaching the overcap body to the container neck. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ohmi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Von Spreckelsen et al. (US 7721901) (hereinafter Von Spreckelsen).
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Ohmi teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as shown above. Modified Ohmi does not specifically teach the container is formed from a second material selected from the group consisting of HDPE and PP.
Von Spreckelsen teaches a method of applying a closure to a container neck (below - Fig. 5), the method comprising: providing an overcap (20/50); providing an insert (32/42); providing a container (2) comprising a container neck (4); and frictionally engaging the insert with the container neck such that the insert blocks fluid communication between an interior of the container and an exterior of the container; and the container is formed from HDPE (Col. 5, Ln. 62 – Col. 7, Ln. 63).
PNG
media_image5.png
237
429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Ohmi and Von Spreckelsen are analogous inventions in the field of containers having overcaps with inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the container of modified Ohmi with the teachings of a container formed from HDPE from Von Spreckelsen in order to provide a container that is both lightweight and strong.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohrman et al (US 7810681) (hereinafter “Lohrman ‘681”) in view of Ohmi et al. (US 5875942 (hereinafter “Ohmi”).
Regarding Claim 18
Lohrman ‘681 teaches a closure (below – Fig. 3 and 4) comprising: an overcap comprising a body (82); and an insert (70) frictionally engaged with the body of the closure, the overcap and insert sharing a rotational axis, the insert configured to engage with a container neck (35b) subsequent to the insert engaging with the closure, the insert comprising an outer ring (72) that interfaces with an upper surface of the container neck and an outer cylindrical wall (74) that interfaces with an interior surface of the container neck, and wherein the insert does not interface with an exterior outward facing surface of the container neck that is opposite the interior surface (Col. 5, Ln. 1-59). Lohrman ‘681 further teaches the overcap may include a reclosure cap (Col. 7, Ln. 1-13).
PNG
media_image6.png
325
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
347
489
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Lohrman ‘681 does not specifically teach the overcap comprising a body and a lid pivotally coupled to the body via a hinge.
Ohmi teaches a closure (Fig. 1 and 3) comprising: an overcap comprising a body (2) and a lid (4) pivotally coupled to the body via a hinge (3); and an insert (1) frictionally engaged with the body of the closure, the overcap and insert sharing a rotational axis, the insert configured to engage with a container neck (50) subsequent to the insert engaging with the closure, the insert comprising an outer ring (30) that interfaces with an upper surface of the container neck and an outer cylindrical wall (8) that interfaces with an interior surface of the container neck, as can be seen in the figures above (Col. 5, Ln. 30 – Col. 6, Ln. 32).
Lohrman ‘681 and Ohmi are analogous inventions in the field of containers having overcaps and inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the reclosure cap (or overcap) of Lohrman ‘681 with the teachings of the overcap comprising a body and a lid pivotally coupled to the body via a hinge of Ohmi in order to provide a reclosable cap.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohrman ‘681 in view of Ohmi (hereinafter “modified Lorhman ‘681”) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Von Spreckelsen et al. (US 7721901) (hereinafter Von Spreckelsen).
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Lorhman ‘681 teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as shown above. Lorhman ‘681 teaches similar containers are made of polyethylene, as it is compatible with existing high volume recycling streams and methods (Col. 2, Ln. 43-50).
However, Lorhman ‘681 does not specifically teach the overcap is formed from a first material comprising LDPE, wherein the container neck is formed from a second material selected from the group consisting of HDPE and PP.
Ohmi teaches the overcap is formed from a first material comprising LDPE (Col. 8, Ln. 51-55).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to further modify the cap of modified Lorhman ‘681 with the teachings of the overcap being formed from LDPE as LDPE is a material well known for its moisture barrier and chemical resistance properties.
Von Spreckelsen teaches a closure (Fig. 5) comprising: an overcap comprising a body (20) and a lid (50); and an insert (32/42) frictionally engaged with the body of the closure, the overcap and insert sharing a rotational axis, the insert configured to engage with a container neck (4) subsequent to the insert engaging with the closure; the insert comprising an outer ring (shown at 28) that interfaces with an upper surface of the container neck and the container neck is formed HDPE (Col. 5, Ln. 62 – Col. 7, Ln. 63).
Modified Lorhman ‘681 further in view of Ohmi and Von Spreckelsen are analogous inventions in the field of containers having overcaps with inserts. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the container of modified Lorhman ‘681 further in view of Ohmi with the teachings of a container formed from HDPE from Von Spreckelsen as HDPE is known to provide a container that is both lightweight and strong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 24 March 2026