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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Because of the Applicant’s amendment, the original objection to the abstract in the Office action filed January 5, 2026, is hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 12, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on January 5, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kniesche (2,173,785) in view of Meade (2,267,246).
Re Amended Claim 1, Kniesche – a bottle sealing cap – discloses a crown cap [4] for attachment to a mouth opening of a container body [13] for closing the mouth opening by means of the crown cap [Fig. 7], wherein the crown cap comprises a material comprising fibers, and wherein molding of the crown cap took place using a fiber-containing pulp [Page 1 Col. 2 Lines 5-10]
Kniesche does not expressly disclose that the container body comprises fibers; however, Meade – a container with a cap – discloses a crown cap [Meade, 11] with a container made of fibers [Meade, 2 and 3, Fig. 1]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses a container that could be made of fibers. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Kniesche container to be made of fibers, before the effective date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, in order to form an effective seal between the cap and the container [Meade, Page 1 Col. 1 Lines 44-51].
Re Claim 6, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to amended claim 1 above; further, the combination discloses a container [Meade, Fig. 1] having a container body comprising fibers [Meade, 1, Page 1, Col. 2 Lines 27-35], with a mouth opening and with a crown cap according to claim 1, wherein in a closure position the crown cap is attached to the mouth opening and closes the container body [Meade, Fig. 1].
Re Claim 7, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to claim 6 above; further, the combination discloses the container body comprises a mouth area that can be held by a clamp for holding [Meade, 13].
Re Claim 8, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to claim 7 above; further, the combination discloses the mouth area comprises a rim [Meade, top portion of rim 13].
Re Claim 9, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to claim 6 above; further, the combination discloses a dimension of the crown cap and a dimension of the mouth opening are made such that the crown cap is attachable to the mouth opening of the container body comprising fibers for closing and that the mouth opening is closed by means of the crown cap [Meade, Fig. 1].
Re Claim 10, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to amended claim 1 above; further, the combination discloses a container body comprising fibers [Meade, 1], having a mouth opening that can be closed with a crown cap according to claim 1 [Kniesche, Fig. 7] [Meade, Fig. 1].
Re Claim 11, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to claim 10 above; further, the combination discloses the container body further comprises a mouth area that can be held by a clamp [Meade, 13] for holding.
Re Claim 18, Kniesche in view of Meade discloses the claimed invention according to claim 11 above; further, the combination discloses the mouth area comprises a rim [Meade, top portion of 13].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kniesche in view of Meade as applied to amended Claim 1 above, and further in view of Steemit [Non-Patent Literature, “3D Printable Beer Bottle Cap – Keep Insects Out of Your Drink”, https://steemit.com/print3d/@bitgem/3d-printable-beer-bottle-cap-keep-wasps-out-of-your-drink, May 31, 2018].
The Kniesche and Meade combination does not expressly disclose that the crown cap was produced by means of 3D printing; however, Steemit – a cap production method – discloses the cap can be made with 3D printing [Steemit, Page 4 Lines 4-6]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses a manufacturing method for a cap using printing. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). One of ordinary skill would be able to manufacture the Kniesche cap from 3D printing, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, in order to reduce the cost of manufacturing materials to make the cap.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kniesche in view of Meade as applied to amended Claim 1 above, and further in view of McManus et al. (2,357,416) [McManus].
Re Claim 5, the Kniesche and Meade combination does not expressly disclose that a coating of a sealing material is provided at least on a surface of the crown cap that would come into contact with a surface of a mouth area of the container body. However, McManus – a coated cap – discloses a crown cap with a coating of a sealing material is provided at least on a surface of the crown cap that would come into contact with a surface of a mouth area of the container body [McManus, Fig. 1, Page 1 Col. 2 Lines 31-49]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses a method of coating the interior of a cap. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C) and (D). One of ordinary skill would be able to manufacture the Kniesche cap with a coating on the interior of the cap, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, for a continuous film on the interior of the cap [McManus, Page 2 Col. 1 Lines 4-10].
Re Claim 17, Kniesche in view of Meade in view of McManus discloses the invention according to Claim 5 above; further, the combination discloses the coating is food-safe and/or biodegradable and/or compostable and/or liquid-resistant [McManus, Page 1 Col. 1 Lines 33-43].
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 8 Lines 15-20, filed April 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim 1 anticipating Meade under §102(a)(1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended Claim 1 being unpatentable over Kniesche in view of Meade.
In response to applicant's argument that claims 4-11, 17, and 18 are allowable {Remarks, Page 8 Line 21 to Page 9 Line 14}, the Applicant adds no new arguments other than Meade does not meet the claimed limitation of amended Claim 1.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, with there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 6, 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Costa et al. (2,338,705).
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 ROBERT J HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1893. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 Aviles-Bosques 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights