DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 in response to Office Action 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that primary prior art Ishii does not teach both the amended cam projection and separate circular projection since it only teaches one of them (page 6 para 1). Examiner agrees, however the amendment necessitates a new grounds of rejection. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110114593 by Ishii et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”) in view of US Pat 5871111 issued to Pfefferkorn et al. (hereinafter “Pfefferkorn”).
Regarding claim 3, Ishii teaches a bottle closure assembly (Fig 3, bottle closure assembly is closure 2) comprising
a cap (Fig 3, a cap is body 4);
a retaining ring (Fig 3, a retaining ring is tamper evident bottom portion 6); and
first and second connecting portions connecting the cap to the retaining ring (Fig 2, connecting pieces 50a and 50b), wherein the cap is provided with a male thread configured to reversibly engage a female thread on a bottle opening (Figs 3 & 6, internal thread 20 reversibly engages thread 66), wherein the retaining ring is configured to engage a bottle neck (Fig 6, 6 engages container bottle neck 64), wherein the connecting portions connect two points on the cap to two points on the retaining ring (Fig 2, connecting portions 50a and 50b connect at two points of each at (cap to ring): 52a to 60a, and 52b to 60b), wherein each of the connecting portions comprises
an upper end joined to the cap (Fig 2, 52a and 52b), a lower end joined to the retaining ring (Fig 2, 60a and 60b), and
first and second tilting portions disposed between upper and lower ends and joined at an expansion point (Fig 2, first and second tilting portions 54a and 58a, and 54b and 58b; each joined at respective expansion points being intermediate portions 56a and 56b that allow the connecting portions 50a and 50b to expand allowing the cap to move away (expansion)), wherein
the underside of the cap is additionally provided with a circular projecting portion adapted to fit just inside the bottle opening to aid a closing process (Fig 6, a circular projecting portion that fits inside the bottle opening capable of aiding closing the cap is annular projection 14),
But Ishii does not explicitly teach a separate cam projection.
Pfefferkorn, however, teaches a similar cap with circular projection comprising:
an underside of the cap is provided with a cam projection having a cam face for cooperating with the bottle opening (Figs 1-2, a cam shaped projection extending from an underside of the cap having a cam shape face (non-horizontal) on its bottom capable of cooperating with an opening space of the bottle is depicted as a projection in the center), wherein
said cam projection extends radially outwards towards a cap wall leaving a gap between the cam projection and the cap wall (Fig 2, the cam projection is shown extending radially outward toward the cap wall while leaving a gap in between them), and wherein there is a gap between a circular projecting portion and the cam projection (Figs 1-2, another gap is between circular projecting portion 6 and the cam projection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cap underside of Ishii with a cam projection as taught by Pfefferkorn in order to advantageously increase cap top wall strength thereby increasing fatigue life during multiple openings of the cap to better ensure the cap wall sealing does not degrade from otherwise being offset over time from top wall deflection, and beneficially improve puncture defense versus tampering from additional top wall thickness, and also advantageously reinforce the cap top wall from bulging looking unaesthetic due to internal container pressure.
Regarding claim 5, Ishii further teaches the bottle closure assembly (Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn) which comprises a polyethylene composition ([0037] 2 is “integral-molded from… polyethylene”).
Regarding claim 11, Ishii further teaches before the cap is first unscrewed a plurality of frangible bridges connect said cap to the retaining ring (Fig 3, breakable bridge portions 26 connect cap 4 to ring 6).
Regarding claim 12, Ishii further teaches the bottle closure assembly (Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 wherein (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn), in use, as the cap is unscrewed it separates from the retaining ring and the first and second tilting portions of said first and second connecting portions are pulled apart (Fig 7, tilting portions 54a and 58a, and 54b and 58b, are respectively pulled apart/away from each other (54 from 58) while the cap unscrews and separates from the ring).
Regarding claim 15, Ishii further teaches a bottle (Fig 6, bottle neck 64 necessarily extends from a bottle) comprising a bottle closure assembly (Fig 6, 64 comprises the assembly 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110114593 by Ishii et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”) in view of US Pat 5871111 issued to Pfefferkorn et al. (hereinafter “Pfefferkorn”) in view of NPL BorPure MB5568 (hereinafter “MB5568”; wherein examiner notes all other HDPE properties possible to claim from Applicant’s disclosure are in the attached NPL in the PTO-892).
Regarding claim 6, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach that the bottle closure assembly (Ishii, Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn) comprises a HDPE.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MB5568 before them before the application was filed, to have made the closure assembly HDPE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach that the bottle closure assembly (Ishii, Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn) comprises a multimodal HDPE.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MB5568 before them before the application was filed, to have made the closure assembly multimodal HDPE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach the bottle closure assembly (Ishii, Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn) comprising a HDPE having an MFR2 of 0.2 to 10 g/10min, and a density of 940 to 960 kg/m3.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MB5568 before them before the application was filed, to have made the closure assembly MFR2 0.8 g/10min and density 956kg/m3, and therefore the claimed ranges too, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach the bottle closure assembly (Ishii, Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn) comprising one or more of:
a HDPE having an SHI 1/100 of not more than 10;
eta zero (Pas) of 30000 or less;
ESCR F50 of 50-1000 hrs; or
FNCT at least 40 hrs.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MB5568 before them before the application was filed, to have made the closure assembly ESCR F50 of 750 hrs, and therefore the claimed ranges too, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110114593 by Ishii et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”) in view of US Pat 5871111 issued to Pfefferkorn et al. (hereinafter “Pfefferkorn”) in view of US Pub 20140021157 by Gren et al. (hereinafter “Gren”).
Regarding claim 10, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach the bottle closure assembly (Ishii, Fig 3, 2) as claimed in claim 3 (see claim 3 with Pfefferkorn), weighing a particular value.
Gren, however, teaches a similar cap assembly weighing less than 5 grams ([0037] closure weight of 1.95 g and 2.45 g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at 5.0 g or less, recognizing that a decrease in weight is directly correlated to increased ease of opening the cap and significantly reduced material cost over thousands of iterations, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cap bottle closure assembly of Ishii/Pfefferkorn to be 5 g or less (lightweight) as taught by Gren in order to advantageously reduce effort of handling for a variety of users and save cost on thousands of iterations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110114593 by Ishii et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”) in view of US Pat 5871111 issued to Pfefferkorn et al. (hereinafter “Pfefferkorn”) in view of WO 2020212430 by Tränkle et al. (hereinafter “Tränkle”).
Regarding claim 13, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach that the lower ends of the connecting portions (Ishii, Figs 2 & 7, 60a and 60b) act as a hinge.
Tränkle, however, teaches lower ends of connecting portions act as a hinge (Fig 1, connecting portions are hinges 7 which are shown fully bent/curved all along, including in their bottom lower ends, even when open, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connecting portions lower ends of Ishii/Pfefferkorn to act as hinges as taught by Tränkle in order to advantageously bend more easily thereby increase ease of opening, while beneficially providing at least the same or more tension from bending/hinging to hold the cap in its stable open position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20110114593 by Ishii et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”) in view of US Pat 5871111 issued to Pfefferkorn et al. (hereinafter “Pfefferkorn”) in view of US Pub 20210101722 by Migas et al. (hereinafter “Migas”).
Regarding claim 14, Ishii/Pfefferkorn does not explicitly teach that after unscrewing the cap, it can be rotated through an angle (Ishii, Fig 8) of at least 150O such as 180O whilst remaining connected to the retaining ring.
Migas, however, teaches a similar tethered cap rotated at least 150 degrees (Fig 3A, [0054] position C about 190 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at an angle range of at least 150O such as 180O, recognizing that an increase in angle is directly correlated to decreased allowance of obstruction to pouring and drinking from the container mouth by having the cap further away from potential contact surfaces, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733