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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sealing member in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,8, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita (US 7147123).
Claim 1: Yamashita discloses a cap comprising: a metal cap 3 (cap body) including a top plate and a skirt having a tubular shape disposed on a circumferential edge of the top plate; a packing 9 (sealing member) disposed on an inner surface of the top plate and configured to seal a container mouth; a slit 16c extending in the skirt in a circumferential direction of the skirt and having a first end portion and a second end portion; and a knurl 6 (first worked portion) and a knurl 6 (second worked portion), wherein the knurl 6 (first worked portion) is present at the first end portion of the slit 16c in the skirt and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) is present at the second end portion of the slit 16c in the skirt, wherein the slit 6a can be formed on the bottom line of the knurls 6 (first and second worked portions) resulting in the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) extending closer to the top plate than the slit 16c in the skirt is to the top plate [see C. 3 L. 53-56], wherein the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) are recesses disposed in the skirt so that the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) are reinforced and made more difficult to deform, wherein the skirt defines a plurality of knurls 6 (knurl portions) therein, where the plurality of knurls 6 (knurled portions) exclude knurls 6 which contact slits 16c, wherein some of the plurality of knurls 6 (knurled portions) therein are arranged at equal intervals in the circumferential direction to constitute a plurality of knurl portion groups, wherein the slit 16c in the skirt is disposed between the plurality of knurl portion groups separately from the plurality of knurls 6, that exclude knurls 6 which contact slits 16c, (knurled portions), and wherein the cap is of a metal material due to the metal cap 3 (cap body) being metal (see annotated fig. 10 below and fig. 6 & 11).
The sealing member for sealing a container mouth is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an annular or disk shaped seal, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Yamashita discloses wherein the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) each have a length in an axial direction of the cap longer than in the circumferential direction (see fig. 11).
Claim 15: Yamashita discloses wherein the packing 9 (sealing member) is of a disk shape (see fig. 6).
Claim 16: Yamashita discloses wherein the packing 9 (sealing member) is of a tubular shape (see fig. 6).
Claim 18: Yamashita discloses wherein the skirt has a plurality of slits 16c therein (see C. 4 L. 54-58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 7147123) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matukawa (US 20060169665).
Claim 17: Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except wherein the sealing member includes a resin material.
Matukawa teaches a metallic pilfer-proof cap 1 having a packing 2 of a resin on the lower side of a top end wall 11 (see P. 0044 and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the packing 9 (sealing member) out of a resin material, as taught by Matukawa, due to its low cost, good sealability, and thermal stability and since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the knurls 6 or 7 of Yamashita are located below slit 6a or 7a, respectively, i.e., on the side opposite to the top plate of the metal cap, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which relies upon the embodiment in which the slit 6a is formed on the bottom line of the knurls 6 (first and second worked portions) resulting in the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) extending closer to the top plate than the slit 16c in the skirt is to the top plate [see C. 3 L. 53-56].
In response to applicant’s argument that the Action acknowledges knurls 6 or 7 located below the slit 6a or 7a in Yamashita correspond to the first and second portions recited in claim 1 of the present application, the Examiner initially responds that the most recent Office Action makes no mention to knurls 7 or slit 7a. Additionally, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which relies upon the embodiment in which the slit 6a is formed on the bottom line of the knurls 6 (first and second worked portions) resulting in the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) extending closer to the top plate than the slit 16c in the skirt is to the top plate [see C. 3 L. 53-56].
In response to applicant’s argument that Yamashita also has a configuration in which a slit 16c extends across two knurls 6 which is in contrast the claim 1 which requires the “first and second portions” be located on the top plate side of the slit, the Examiner responds that slit 16c extending across two knurls 6 is not in contrast with the limitation of claim 1 that the “first and second portions” be located on the top plate side of the slit. Yamashita discloses that the slit 6a can be formed on the bottom line of the knurls 6 (first and second worked portions) resulting in the knurl 6 (first worked portion) and the knurl 6 (second worked portion) extending closer to the top plate than the slit 16c in the skirt is to the top plate [see C. 3 L. 53-56].
In response to applicant’s argument that in Yamashita the slit is formed integrally with the knurl which is in contrast to the claimed cap which requires a plurality of knurl portions, and, among these, some of the plurality of knurl portions arranged at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, to form knurl portion groups, a slit disposed between these knurl portion groups separately from the knurl portions, such that the slit in the claimed cap is separate from the knurl portion groups, the Examiner responds that Yamashita discloses a plurality of knurls 6 (knurl portions), where the plurality of knurls 6 (knurl portions) exclude knurls 6 which contact slits 16c, and, among the plurality of knurls 6 (knurl portions), some of the plurality of knurls 6 (knurl portions) arranged at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, to form knurl portion groups [see annotated fig. 10 above], and a slit 16c is disposed between these knurl portion groups, separately from the plurality of knurls 6, that exclude knurls 6 which contact slits 16c, (knurled portions), such that the slit 16c is separate from the knurl portion groups.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736