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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzma et al. (U.S. 2012/0305516) in view of Loehl (DE102011015004A1). Kuzma et al. teaches an assembly for closing a tube, said assembly comprising a tube head 10 comprising a neck 10 extending along a main axis (“OA”; figure 3) to a free upper end edge at 110, and comprising a helical external thread 320, the external thread 320 having a thread root (portion of thread connected to neck) and a thread crest (radially outermost portion of thread), a cap (“standard closure”; paragraph [0027]) comprising an internal thread complementary to the external thread to allow the cap to be screwed onto the neck (see C in figure 1 depicting “standard closure”; see also paragraph [0027]), the internal thread having a thread root and a thread crest (as shown in figure 1), and means for centering the cap relative to the neck 360 while it is being screwed on (paragraph [0027]), formed by at least one projection 360 which extends from the thread root of one of the external thread or the internal thread (external thread 320) and the height of which is less than that of said thread (figure 2A).
Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the residual radial clearance. Loehl teaches that it is known to provide a closure with a residual radial clearance (see figure 2 clearance between inner surface of 4 and 1, 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Kuzma et al. with the residual radial clearance, as taught by Loehl, in order to allow the closure to rotate unobstructed to the closed position.
The residual radial clearance, as taught by Loehl, remaining between the cap and the projections of the neck in the screwed position of the cap on the neck (see clearance between 1, 7 and the inner surface of 4; figure 2 of Loehl).
Regarding claim 2, the external thread 320 comprises a plurality of projections 360 which are evenly distributed around the main axis (figures 2A and 3).
Regarding claim 3, there are four projections (shown in figure 2A).
Regarding claim 4, each projection is arranged on the external thread of the neck (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the cap being made of a rigid plastic material. Kuzma et al. does teach that the neck is made of a rigid plastic material (see paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Kuzma et al. with the cap being made of the rigid plastic material used in the neck, in order to construct the cap of a durable and lightweight material 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.
Regarding claim 6, each projection 360 has the same rigidity as the thread crest of the external thread, as they are integrally molded of the same material.
Regarding claim 7, each projection 360 is in the form of a rib which axially connects two adjacent turns of the thread (figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, at least one of the projections 360 is arranged between the two upper end turns of the thread (figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, the width of the projection 360 taken in the orientation of the turn, is less than its height (figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, the cap and neck are made of HDPE (paragraph [0033], and as modified above in rejection of claim 5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzma et al. (U.S. 2012/0305516) in view of Loehl (DE102011015004A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crecelius et al. (U.S. 4,872,571). The modified assembly of Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the foil seal. Crecelius et al. does teach that it is known to provide a closure assembly with a foil seal (see element 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Kuzma et al. with a foil seal, as taught by Crecelius et al., in order to seal the contents and provide tamper indication.
Further regarding claim 9, the modified assembly of Kuzma et al. teaches a foil seal (10 of Crecelius et al.) closing said neck, the foil seal (10 of Crecelius et al.) having a radial gripping tab (11 of Crecelius et al.) folded down against the external thread of the neck, the radial tab being received in a nominal radial clearance between the upper end turn of the internal thread and the neck (figure 1 of Crecelius et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzma et al. (U.S. 2012/0305516) in view of Loehl (DE102011015004A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loehl (DE 102011015004B4). The modified assembly of Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the decreasing height of the internal thread. Loehl does teach that it is known to provide a closure assembly with an internal thread having a decreasing height (see element 5; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Kuzma et al. with the closure having an internal thread with a decreasing height, as taught by Loehl, in order to gradually tighten the engagement between the closure and the neck.
Further regarding claim 11, the upper end turn of the internal thread (as modified by Loehl) has a decreasing height from bottom to top so that the nominal radial clearance between the thread crest of said end turn (figure 2 of Loehl) and the thread root of the external thread of the cap is greater than the nominal radial clearance between the other turns of the internal thread and the external thread, as modified by Loehl.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzma et al. (U.S. 2012/0305516) in view of Loehl (DE102011015004A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rinne (U.S. 5,722,545). The modified assembly of Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the upper end portion having a frustoconical shape. Rinne does teach that it is known to provide a closure assembly with the upper end portion having a frustoconical shape (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Kuzma et al. with the upper end portion having a frustoconical shape, as taught by Rinne, in order to improve the sealing contact with the closure.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzma et al. (U.S. 2012/0305516) in view of Loehl (DE102011015004A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacoulet et al. (U.S. 2011/0017772). The modified assembly of Kuzma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the container being a tube. Jacoulet et al. does teach that it is known to provide a closure assembly on a tube (see element 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Kuzma et al. with the container being a tube, as taught by Jacoulet et al., in order to seal a flexible container which can easily dispense the contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kuzma et al. does not teach a radial clearance between the cap and the protuberance. Claim 1 recites that “a residual clearance remaining between the cap and the projections of the neck in the screwed position of the cap on the neck”. It is the examiner’s position that Kuzma et al., as modified by Loehl meets this limitation of the independent claim. The secondary reference of Loehl is used in the rejections above for the teaching of providing a radial clearance between the inner surface of the cap and the protuberance of the neck, as shown in figure 2 of Loehl. Figure 2 of Loehl is reproduced below with a line indicating the spacing that is considered the residual radial clearance.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This figure above of Loehl shows the cap in the screwed position of the cap on the neck. Applicant argues that element 5 has a wedge height that protrudes beyond the core diameter. As shown above, this wedge element 5 does not extend radially beyond the thread at 1. This wedge element provides an axial force onto the thread of the cap, the wedge extends axially into the thread space of the cap thread. The thread is deformed in the axial direction not the radial direction. The radial clearance exists between the radially outer surface of the projection and the inner surface of the cap skirt.
Applicant argues that the partial cross section shown in figure 2 above does not show a clearance about the entire circumference. However, the claims do not require that the radial clearance extends about the entire circumference.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivation for the proposed modification is within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A radial clearance does not affect the axial wedging of the projection 5 into the thread space.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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 on 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights