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 § 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) 1-8 -15, 17-19 and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enemark et al. (EP 3 854 717 A1) in view of Gaiser (US 2006/0016836).
In re claim 1: Enemark et al. discloses a multi-piece closure 1, in particular for a liquid-containing carton package 50, comprising: a lower part 100 with a flat support 110 and a neck 102 arranged integrally thereon, the neck 102 having: a neck opening (opening defined by the circular rim of 102); a detent ring 115 surrounding the neck 102; a screw cap 200 with a retaining ring 400 and with a closure cap 300 fastened to the retaining ring 400 via a film hinge 500, the retaining ring 400 being arranged at least partially between the flat support 110 and the detent ring 115 around the neck 102 and being held rotatably by the detent ring 115, and the film hinge 500 comprising: a first hinge member (portion of 400 directly below 500 in figure 15) forming part of the retaining ring 400 and extending arcuately over a partial circumference of the retaining ring 400; a second hinge member (portion of 300 directly above 500 in figure 15) forming part of the closure cap 300 and extending in an arc over a partial circumference of the closure cap 300 opposite the first hinge member; a three-portion hinge joint 500 having a central portion 506 and two outer portions 502/504 and connecting the first hinge member to the second hinge member, wherein at least the two outer portions 502/504 are configured to exert an at least partially increasing tensile force up to a limit angle during a rotation about a line of rotation and to exert an at least partially decreasing tensile force during a further rotation from this limit angle (see [0128]-[0132] of Enemark et al.).
Enemark et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Gaiser:
Gaiser teaches the provision of a three-portion hinge joint 28 with a central portion (portion between the outer hinge portions indicated by reference number 28) having a material free space positioned between two outer portions (see figure 1 of Gaiser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the central portion of Enemark et al. with an open space area or areas as taught by Gaiser in order to reduce material cost for each closure (see figure 1 of Gaiser).
Enemark et al. in view of Gaiser further teach:
In re claim 2: a distance of a boundary of the outer portions to the first hinge member (portion of 300 directly above 500 in figure 15) to a boundary of the outer portions to the second hinge member (portion of 400 directly below 500 in figure 15) increases with increasing distance from the center portion 506 (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 3: an outer rim (outer rim portions directly above 602/604 in figure 15) of the outer portions 502/504 substantially terminate with corresponding ends of the arcuately extending hinge parts (see figures 15 and 16 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 4: a length of the outer rim of the outer portions 602/604 is at least twice greater than a length of an inner rim adjacent the center portion 506 (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 5: the outer rim of the outer portions 602/604 is adjacent to a portion of the closure cap 300 extending towards the retaining ring 400 (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 6: the outer rim of the outer portions 602/604 is adjacent to a portion of the retaining ring 400 extending toward the closure cap 300 (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 7: a curvature of the first hinge member (the apex portion of the curve) is stronger than a curvature of the second hinge member (an end portion of the curve) (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 8: the retaining ring 400 comprises:- two ramp-shaped extension sections (portions below 602/604) extending on either side of the first hinge member (portion of 300 directly above 500 in figure 15) subsequently along a portion of the retaining ring and rising toward the first hinge member (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 9: an increase of the ramp-shaped extending portions is stepwise, in at least 2 steps, wherein a rise angle is different between the first and the second step.
To modify the ramp-shaped extending portions of Enemark et al. with the step shape as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the cut between the retaining ring and the screw cap and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. It should be noted, that the shape of the cut between a retaining ring and a screw cap are notoriously well-known as different desired shapes which can be seen in the prior art of record.
In re claim 10: the line of rotation can optionally extends partially through the central portion 506 and moves outwardly during a rotation to open the closure cap 300 (see figure 15 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 11: the first hinge member and adjoining extension portions extend approximately 90° to 135° along a segment of a circle (see [0130] and figure 16 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 12: at least one first locking member 108 formed between a neck opening and the detent ring 115; wherein the closure cap 300 comprises at least one second locking member 322 which, in a closed state, cooperates with the at least one first locking member 108 to close the neck opening with the closure cap 300 in a fluid-tight manner and, in the closed state, rotation of the screw cap 200 about the neck 102 in a first direction causes the screw cap 200 to open (see figures 7 and 8a Enemark et al.).
In re claim 13: the retaining ring 400 is connected to the closure cap 300 via connecting webs 601 forming a plurality of predetermined breaking points (see [0136] of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 14: the detent ring 115 extends with its side facing the flat support 110 substantially parallel to the flat support 110 and the side facing away from the flat support extends obliquely to the flat support (see [0136] of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 15: the retaining ring 400 comprises a plurality of retaining elements 455 configured to substantially non-releasably retain the retaining ring 400 about the neck 102 in cooperation with the detent ring 115 (see figures 7 and 13 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 17: the at least one first locking member 108 comprises at least four externally threaded segments 108a/108b/108c/108d that at least partially overlap (see figure 13 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 18: a length of the externally threaded segments (see figure 13 of Enemark et al.) is 0.35 to 0.70 times a neck circumference (see figure 13 of Enemark et al.). It should be noted that the segments are not structurally claimed to be separated from each other.
In re claim 19: a pitch of the externally threaded segments 108a/108b/108c/108d changes (see figure 13 of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 24: the closure cap 300 includes a sealing ring 310 that engages the neck 102 opening in a fluid-tight manner when the closure cap 300 is in a closed condition (see figure 8A of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 25: the sealing ring 310 it comprises an outer diameter slightly larger than the neck opening thereby creating a seal (see figure 8A of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 26: the neck opening includes an inwardly curved tab 112 (see figure 8A of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 27: the sealing ring 310 comprises a height that in-creases with increasing distance from the film hinge 500 (see [0103] of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 28: a height of the sealing ring 310 is such that, in a cross-section along a plane passing through the film hinge 500 and the center of the closure cap, a portion of the sealing ring 310 facing the film hinge 500 comprises a lower height than a portion of the sealing ring 310 facing away from the film hinge 500 (see [0103] of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 29: a side of the sealing ring 310 facing the neck 102 opening is shorter than an inner side of the sealing ring 310 (see figure 8A of Enemark et al.).
In re claim 30: the film hinge 500 is configured to hold the closure cap 300 in an opened and/or unfolded state at an angle of at least 90° rotated about the film hinge 500, and in the range of 105° to 135° but greater than 100° rotated about the film hinge 500 (see [0130] and figure 16 of Enemark et al.).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enemark et al. (EP 3 854 717 A1) in view of Gaiser (US 2006/0016836) and in further view of Grussen (US 4,394,918). Enemark et al. . in view of Gaiser teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Grussen:
In re claim 16: the retaining elements 7 are pivotally attached at one end to the retaining ring 2, and face with their other end the side of the detent ring 15 facing the planar support 14; and wherein a pivot axis of the retaining elements 7 faces the planar support 14 (see figures 1 and 4 of Grussen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replaces the retaining elements of Enemark et al. in view of Gaiser with the pivoting locking elements as taught by Grussen in order to prevent the retaining ring from easily disconnecting from the container neck when in use (see figures 1 and 4 of Grussen).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enemark et al. (EP 3 854 717 A1) in view of Gaiser (US 2006/0016836) and in further view of Berroa (US 2021/0229873). Enemark et al. in view of Gaiser teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Berroa:
In re claim 20: the at least one second locking member 7 comprises at least three internally threaded segments 7 that at least partially overlap (see figure 11 of Berroa).
In re claim 21: a length of the internally threaded segments 7 is substantially 0.2 to 0.6 times, in particular in the range of 0.30 to 0.45 times, a circumference of the inside of the closure cap 25 on which the internally threaded segment 7 is disposed (see figure 11 of Berroa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replaces the first and second locking member system of Enemark et al. in view of Gaiser with the locking member system as taught by of Berroa in order to allow for easy opening of the closure lid and a secured multipoint lock when closes (see [0075] and figure 11 of Berroa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the previous rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735