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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exterior outward facing surface" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as referencing “an exterior outward facing surface”. Further clarification/correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the exterior outward facing surface" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as referencing “an exterior outward facing surface”. Further clarification/correction is required.
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) 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), the overcap configured to engage with and interface with an exterior surface of a container neck; and an insert (70) frictionally engaged with the body, the overcap and insert sharing a rotational axis, the insert configured to engage with the container neck (35b) subsequent to the insert engaging with the overcap, 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_image1.png
325
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
347
489
media_image2.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 below (Col. 5, Ln. 30 – Col. 6, Ln. 32).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
373
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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).
PNG
media_image5.png
237
429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1: Closest prior art - Ohmi et al. (US 5875942) in view of Watts (US 2018/0346221) [previously cited] – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach the overcap configured to engage with and interface with an exterior surface of the container neck, wherein the insert does not interface with an exterior outward facing surface of the container neck that is opposite an interior surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to claim 18. Applicant argues that Lohrman in view of Ohmi does not teach “the overcap configured to engage with and interface with an exterior surface of a container neck” and “the insert does not interface with an exterior outward facing surface of the container neck that is opposite the interior surface”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the figures, Lohrman does not teach the insert interfacing with an exterior outward facing surface of the container neck. Lohrman has a flange (shown at 72) which interacts with an upper surface of the neck, and not an exterior outward facing surface of the container neck – similar to Applicant’s outer ring (172). Further, Ohmi teaches an overcap that does not rest on the upper surface of the neck, but rather surrounds the exterior surface of the container neck. As such, there would be no issue with an interaction between the insert of Lohrman and the overcap of Ohmi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights