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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-11, 17, and 18 in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, with there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following: the term ‘disclosure’ could be amended to read ‘invention’. [Abstract Lines 1, 3, 5, and 7], and because of the legal term “means” [Abstract Line 2]. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meade (2,267,246).
Re Claim 1, Meade – a container with cap – discloses a crown cap [11] for attachment to a mouth opening of a container body [Fig. 1] comprising fibers and for closing the mouth opening by means of the crown cap [21, cork].
Re Claim 2, Meade discloses the crown cap comprises a metal [Page 2, Col. 2 Line 48].
Re Claim 3, Meade discloses the crown cap comprises a material comprising fibers [21, cork].
Re Claim 6, Meade discloses a container [Fig. 1] having a container body comprising fibers [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 [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 7, Meade discloses the container body comprises a mouth area that can be held by a clamp for holding [13].
Re Claim 8, Meade discloses the mouth area comprises a rim [top portion of rim 13].
Re Claim 9, Meade 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 [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 10, Meade discloses a container body comprising fibers [1], having a mouth opening that can be closed with a crown cap according to claim 1 [Fig. 1].
Re Claim 11, Meade discloses the container body further comprises a mouth area that can be held by a clamp [13] for holding.
Re Claim 18, Meade discloses the mouth area comprises a rim [top portion of 13].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade as applied to Claim 3 above 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].
Meade 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 Meade 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 Meade as applied to Claim 1 above in view of McManus et al. (2,357,416) [McManus].
Re Amended Claim 5, Meade 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 Meade 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, Meade in view of McManus discloses the invention according to amended 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.
Conclusion
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