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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3 November 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See MPEP 608.02 V. See at least T3 and L3 of figure 2E.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 106a does not appear to be directed to the external surface of the A-collar that the second extension sections forms a seal with as disclosed.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 28 of figure 3D is not directed to the retention collar as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of the recessed portions is” should be corrected to “the plurality of the recessed portions are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of first extension sections is” should be corrected to “the plurality of first extension sections are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of second extension sections is” should be corrected to “the plurality of second extension sections are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of first extension sections is” should be corrected to “the plurality of first extension sections are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of second extension sections is” should be corrected to “the plurality of second extension sections are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is led to be rejected as it is dependent from a cancelled claim. In order to apply art claim 21 will be interpreted as if it were dependent from claim 1.
Claim 22 is led to be rejected as it is dependent from a cancelled claim. In order to apply art claim 22 will be interpreted as if it were dependent from claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9-14, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 5450973) further in view of Benoit-Gonin (US 20190039787) and Trout (US 5609262).
Claim 1: Ellis discloses a closure member 10 (closure) comprising: a cap member 12 (first closure portion) including: a top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion); a skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) depending from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion), the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including a threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation) for mating engagement with an external thread formation of a container, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a recessed portion, at least a portion of the recessed portion being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation); and a second closure portion including: a band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) depending from and being at least partially detachably connected to the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) by bridge elements 28 (frangible connection), the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including an annular band 30 (first portion) and annular flap 32 (second portion) connected via a hinge line 34 (bending area), the annular flap 32 (second portion) extending upwardly from the hinge line 34 (bending area) towards the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) in a folded position and being located inwardly from the annular band 30 (first portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band), the annular flap 32 (second portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including a second leg 38 (tab section), a plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and a plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections), the distal portions of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) being located further from the hinge line 34 (bending area) than the proximal portion of the second leg 38 (tab section), wherein the recessed portion is sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position (see C. 6 L. 12-13 and annotated fig. 1 below).
Ellis does not disclose the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion further including a plurality of recessed portions, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the polymeric top wall portion than the internal thread formation, the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections when the closure is in a closed position, or wherein the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion forms a plurality of retention collars, each of the plurality of retention collars assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections in one of the plurality of recessed portions when the closure is in the closed position.
Benoit-Gonin teaches a closure 1 having a skirt 3 with projections 20 extending inwardly, wherein a band first portion 12 includes arcuate extension sections 17 spaced by notches 18, wherein the projections 20 engage into notches 18 and the arcuate extension sections 17 engage into recessed portions between the projections 20 (see fig. 1 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the closure member 10 (closure) to include projections 20 extending from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to engage into gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections), as taught by Benoit-Gonin, in order to help co-rotation of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) and band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) which helps to support the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) to relieve stress on the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) and to ensure that the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) drops down to indicate tampering.
The combination results in the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a plurality of recessed portions located between projections 20, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation), and the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position.
Trout teaches an inner cap 35 having an annular channel 54 behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) and ratchet-like tabs 49 having lip extensions 49f which are tucked into a locked position within the annular channel 54 behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.
The combination results in the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars with each extending between adjacent projections 20 and assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) in one of the recessed portions when the closure member 10 (closure) is in the closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein an entirety of the plurality of the recessed portions is located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation) (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) is vertical in the folded position (see fig. 1).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) is at an angle of from 80 to about 100 degrees (see fig. 1).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) is at an angle of from 35 to about 60 degrees with some other structure.
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the cap member 12 (first closure portion) further includes a hooked flange 60 (polymeric continuous plug seal) depending from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion), the hooked flange 60 (continuous plug seal) being spaced from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) (see fig. 1).
Claim 10: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) form a “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) form a truncated “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 12: Ellis discloses a package comprising: a container 24 having a neck 22 (neck portion) defining an opening, the container 24 having a threaded portion 20 (external thread formation) on the neck 22 (neck portion) and a peripheral bead 46 (A-collar); and a closure member 10 (closure) being configured for fitment to the neck 22 (neck portion) of the container 24 for closing the opening, the closure member 10 (closure) including a cap member 12 (first closure portion) and a second closure portion, the cap member 12 (first closure portion) including a top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) and a skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) depending from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion), the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including a threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation) for mating engagement with the threaded portion 20 (external thread formation) of the container 24, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a recessed portion, at least a portion of the recessed portion being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation), the second closure portion includes a band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) depending from and being at least partially detachably connected to the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) by bridge elements 28 (frangible connection), the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including an annular band 30 (first portion) and annular flap 32 (second portion) connected via a hinge line 34 (bending area), the annular flap 32 (second portion) extending upwardly from the hinge line 34 (bending area) towards the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) in a folded position and being located inwardly from the annular band 30 (first portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band), the annular flap 32 (second portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including a second leg 38 (tab section), a plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and a plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections), the distal portions of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) being located further from the hinge line 34 (bending area) than the proximal portion of the second leg 38 (tab section), the recessed portion being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position (see C. 6 L. 12-13 and annotated fig. 1 above).
Ellis does not disclose the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion further including a plurality of recessed portions, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the polymeric top wall portion than the internal thread formation, the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections when the closure is in a closed position, or wherein the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion forms a plurality of retention collars, each of the plurality of retention collars assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections in one of the plurality of recessed portions when the closure is in the closed position.
Benoit-Gonin teaches a closure 1 having a skirt 3 with projections 20 extending inwardly, wherein a band first portion 12 includes arcuate extension sections 17 spaced by notches 18, wherein the projections 20 engage into notches 18 and the arcuate extension sections 17 engage into recessed portions between the projections 20 (see fig. 1 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the closure member 10 (closure) to include projections 20 extending from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to engage into gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections), as taught by Benoit-Gonin, in order to help co-rotation of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) and band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) which helps to support the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) to relieve stress on the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) and to ensure that the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) drops down to indicate tampering.
The combination results in the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a plurality of recessed portions located between projections 20, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation), and the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position.
Trout teaches an inner cap 35 having an annular channel 54 behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) and ratchet-like tabs 49 having lip extensions 49f which are tucked into a locked position within the annular channel 54 behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.
The combination results in the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars with each extending between adjacent projections 20 and assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) in one of the recessed portions when the closure member 10 (closure) is in the closed position.
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) is at an angle of from 80 to about 100 degrees (see fig. 1).
Claim 18: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) is at an angle of from 35 to about 60 degrees with some other structure.
Claim 19: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) form a “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 20: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of uppermost ratchet teeth 40 (second extension sections) form a truncated “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 12: Under a second interpretation Ellis discloses a package comprising: a container 24 having a neck 22 (neck portion) defining an opening, the container 24 having a threaded portion 20 (external thread formation) on the neck 22 (neck portion) and a peripheral bead 46 (A-collar); and a closure member 10 (closure) being configured for fitment to the neck 22 (neck portion) of the container 24 for closing the opening, the closure member 10 (closure) including a cap member 12 (first closure portion) and a second closure portion, the cap member 12 (first closure portion) including a top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) and a skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) depending from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion), the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) including a threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation) for mating engagement with the threaded portion 20 (external thread formation) of the container 24, the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a recessed portion, at least a portion of the recessed portion being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation), the second closure portion includes a band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) depending from and being at least partially detachably connected to the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) by bridge elements 28 (frangible connection), the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including an annular band 30 (first portion) and annular flap 32 (second portion) connected via a hinge line 34 (bending area), the annular flap 32 (second portion) extending upwardly from the hinge line 34 (bending area) towards the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) in a folded position and being located inwardly from the annular band 30 (first portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band), the annular flap 32 (second portion) of the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) including lowermost ratchet teeth 40 (tab section), a plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and a plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections), the distal portions of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the distal portions of the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) being located further from the hinge line 34 (bending area) than the lowermost ratchet teeth 40 (tab section), the recessed portion being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position (see C. 6 L. 12-13 and annotated fig. 1 above).
Ellis does not disclose the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion further including a plurality of recessed portions, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the polymeric top wall portion than the internal thread formation, the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections when the closure is in a closed position, or wherein the interior surface of the polymeric annular skirt portion forms a plurality of retention collars, each of the plurality of retention collars assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first extension sections in one of the plurality of recessed portions when the closure is in the closed position.
Benoit-Gonin teaches a closure 1 having a skirt 3 with projections 20 extending inwardly, wherein a band first portion 12 includes arcuate extension sections 17 spaced by notches 18, wherein the projections 20 engage into notches 18 and the arcuate extension sections 17 engage into recessed portions between the projections 20 (see fig. 1 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the closure member 10 (closure) to include projections 20 extending from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to engage into gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections), as taught by Benoit-Gonin, in order to help co-rotation of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) and band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) which helps to support the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) to relieve stress on the bridge elements 28 (frangible connection) and to ensure that the band portion 14 (polymeric tamper-evident band) drops down to indicate tampering.
The combination results in the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) further including a plurality of recessed portions located between projections 20, at least a portion of the plurality of the recessed portions being located further from the top wall 16 (polymeric top wall portion) than the threaded portion 20 (internal thread formation), and the plurality of the recessed portions being sized and shaped to receive a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) when the closure member 10 (closure) is in a closed position.
Trout teaches an inner cap 35 having an annular channel 54 behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) and ratchet-like tabs 49 having lip extensions 49f which are tucked into a locked position within the annular channel 54 behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.
The combination results in the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars with each extending between adjacent projections 20 and assisting in holding a respective one of the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) in one of the recessed portions when the closure member 10 (closure) is in the closed position.
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein a diameter of at least one of the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) of the band portion 14 (tamper-evident band) is less than a diameter of the peripheral bead 46 (A-collar) (see fig. 1).
Claim 14: The combination discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) of the band portion 14 (tamper-evident band) abuts an exterior surface of the peripheral bead 46 (A-collar).
Claim 18: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) is at an angle of from 35 to about 60 degrees with some other structure.
Claim 19: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) form a generally “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 20: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) and the plurality of second legs 38 (second extension sections) form a truncated “y” shape (see fig. 1).
Claim 21: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein each of the plurality of retention collars extends from about 3 to about 30 percent into a respective one of the plurality of recessed portions.
Trout discloses that the bead 55 (retention collar) extends only over a portion of the lip extensions 49f (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to made each of the plurality of retention collars formed by the annular bead 55 (retention collar) extend from about 3 to about 30 percent into a respective one of the plurality or recessed portions in order to restrain the annular flaps 32 (second portions) using less material and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Examiner notes that no criticality has been established for the claimed range.
Claim 22: See claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 5450973), Benoit-Gonin (US 20190039787), and Trout (US 5609262) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higgins (US 20010015341).
Claim 8: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the closure comprises polyolefins.
Higgins teaches a closure moulded from a polyolefin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the closure member 10 (closure) out of polyolefin, as taught by Higgins, in order to provide excellent sealability, durability, strength at a light weight and low cost 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.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3 November 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of amended claim 1 based upon Ellis (US 5450973) further in view of Benoit-Gonin (US 20190039787) and Trout (US 5609262) because: the declaration fails to set forth persuasive facts.
The Examiner acknowledges the declarant Jeremy Morin (Vice President of Research and Development of the Applicant Closure Systems International Inc.) as an expert in the field of polymeric closures.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 14 that the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin are located above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) the bead that forms a ledge in the terminal skirt portion 10 while citing figure 1. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. It is unclear what declarant is referring to by the bead that forms a ledge in the terminal skirt portion 10, as no bead that forms a ledge in the closure 1 is discussed in Benoit-Gonin nor shown below the projections 20 in the figures.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 15 that if the teachings of the projections 20 and the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin were used in Ellis it would modify several teachings or principles in Ellis. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 15 that Ellis teaches and requires in claim 1 that its annular flap (specifically, its first leg 36 as shown in FIG. 1) “abuts against an underneath portion of said peripheral bead and said flap and band interlock forcing said tamper indicating band to sever from said cap member upon removal of said closure from said container”.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 15 that the portion (triangular-section portion 14) in Benoit-Gonin does not include any recesses or notches.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 15 that the portion (triangular-section portion 14) in Benoit-Gonin that abuts against its bead/ledge portion does not include any recesses or notches. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. The factual evidence supplied by Benoit-Gonin is that there is not a bead/ledge portion in the closure 1 that the triangular-section portion 14 abuts.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 15 that the extension 15 in Benoit-Gonin, which resides closer to the top plate 2, include the notches 18.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 15 that the extension 15 in Benoit-Gonin, which resides closer to the top plate 2, include the “recessed portions between the projections 20”. Factually, the recessed portions exist in the terminal skirt portion 10 between the projections 20.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 16 that Ellis does not disclose, teach or suggest its band portion 14 (and more specifically annular flap 32) extending upwardly to contact with an interior surface of the cap member 12, but rather its annular flap 32 terminates at an underneath portion of the peripheral bead/ledge area. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 of the band portion 14 extends upwardly to contact with an interior surface of the cap member 12 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 55-59: “the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 to jam between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the ski[rt] wall 18 of the cap member 14”).
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 17 that the Office Action states that Ellis would be modified by adding gaps in the plurality of first legs 36 and that one skilled in the art would not modify Ellis in this manner. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Factually, the Office Action does not state that Ellis would be modified by adding gaps in the plurality of first legs 36. Ellis provides factual evidence that gaps exist between the plurality of first legs 36 (see fig. 2 and C. 3 L. 63-67.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 17 that Ellis does not disclose, teach or suggest its annular first leg 36 contacting an interior surface of the skirt wall 18, but rather the annular first leg 36 of Ellis is specifically taught as contacting an underneath portion of the interior surface of its skirt wall 18. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 contacts an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 while also contacting the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 55-59: “the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 to jam between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the ski[rt] wall 18 of the cap member 14”).
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 18 that if a modified leg of Ellis would extend axially upward onto an internal wall of its skirt wall 18 to contact the added projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin, then it would not be possible to abut the bead/ledge area with the first leg so as to provide the resistance specifically taught in Ellis and specifically if a modified first leg in Ellis were to rest against an interior surface of the skirt wall 18, it would not make the locking engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42 possible because the annular first leg 36 would not be able to reside flush against both the frangible bridges 28 and an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 and thus the teaching in Benoit-Gonin of its projections 20/notches 18 would not be consistent with the principles and teachings in Ellis. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 contacts an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 while also contacting the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 55-59: “the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 to jam between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the ski[rt] wall 18 of the cap member 14”). Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 resides flush against both the frangible bridges 28 and the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18 such that the latching engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42 is functional. The combination results in projections 20 extending from the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18 at locations of the gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extensions sections). The modification in light of Benoit-Gonin does not modify or require modification of the first leg 36 in any manner.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 19 that if the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin were relocated into the closure configuration of Ellis that this would also be problematic as one skilled in the art would not locate projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin on the bridge elements 28 of Ellis because of the increased difficulty (if even possibility) in separating the tamper-evident band into two components during the opening process. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not locate projections 20 on the bridge elements 28.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 19 that one skilled in the art would also not locate projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin directly adjacent to the bridge elements 28 in Ellis in the bead/ledge location because of the possibility or likelihood of affecting the force needed to break the bridge elements, that specifically it would not be desirable to modify the force needed to break the bridge elements in Ellis from its optimally designed breakable force, that locating the projections 20 directly adjacent to the bridge elements would potentially increase the strength needed to break the bridge elements. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. The factual evidence is that the thickness and dimensions of the frangible bridge elements 28 of the combination, even with projections 20 located adjacently, are not modified in any manner and as such function identically to Ellis alone.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 19 that manufacturing tolerances where the bridge elements are formed in a separate step from the remainder of the closure could also be problematic if the bridge elements are formed on or close to the projections. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Further, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not require that the bridge elements be formed in a separate step from the remainder of the closure. Ellis provides factual evidence that its closure 1 is a one-piece molded plastic closure (see abstract). Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 are monolithically formed with the remainder of the closure 1.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 20 that there would not be sufficient room to form the claimed retention collars and respective recessed portions with their associated functionality using the proposed combination of Ellis, Benoit-Gonin and Trout in the annular bead/ledge area of Ellis as the annular bead forming the ledge in Ellis has a small depth from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 and also has a short height from the frangible bridges 13 and thus one skilled in the art would not locate the claimed retention collars and respective recessed portions in the smaller annular bead/ledge area of Ellis that receives the annular first leg 36 in the folded or the closed position. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. The factual evidence of Trout provides that it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art to provide an annular channel 54 of small depth behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) to restrain lip extensions 49f of ratchet-like tabs 49 (see fig. 10). Further, it is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See also id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 21 that there would be problems with the spacing of the projections 20 taught by Benoit-Gonin as FIG. 1 of Benoit-Gonin shows large gaps or distances between adjacent projections 20 and this spacing of Benoit-Gonin would have too few points to hold the tamper-evident band from unfolding. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Further, this is a piecemeal analysis of the references. The spacing of the projections 20 of the combination is slightly wider than first legs 36. Additionally, this does not take into account the teachings of Trout. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is further noted that spacing of projections to hold the tamper-evident band from unfolding are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 21 that by having the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin being larger than needed to receive its projections 20 the notches would not assist in holding the tamper-evident band from unfolding. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Further, it is noted that notches assisting in holding the tamper-evident band from unfolding are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, this is a piecemeal analysis of the references which does not take into account the teachings of Trout.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 22 that in the embodiment of Trout the annular leg 36 of Ellis would not extend above its bridge elements 28, which would necessitate the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin to be formed adjacent to the bridge elements 28 of Ellis and which also would necessitate that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin be formed on the bridge elements 28 to correspond to the notches 18. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Ellis is not modified to include notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin. Trout is not the primary reference and is not modified by Ellis. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 extends above its bridge element 28. Trout teaches an inner cap 35 having an annular channel 54 behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) and ratchet-like tabs 49 having lip extensions 49f which are tucked into a locked position within the annular channel 54 behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) (see fig. 10). As Ellis already discloses a channel between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the skirt wall 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 23 that one skilled in the art would disagree with the Office Action’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art … to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.” The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion.
In evaluating the declaration, the Examiner used a preponderance of the evidence standard. The opinion of the expert was weighed against the facts of the case. The vested interest of the declarant and facts and opinions were taken into account with facts holding more weight than opinions. In view of the claims at hand and the disclosure of Ellis (US 5450973) further in view of Benoit-Gonin (US 20190039787) and Trout (US 5609262), the opinion evidence provided in the declaration by Applicant employee Jeremy Morin is insufficient to overcome the rejection upon Ellis (US 5450973) further in view of Benoit-Gonin (US 20190039787) and Trout (US 5609262) applied under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 3-5 and 7 of office action dated 16 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 3 November 2025.
The claim objections in paragraph 9 of office action dated 16 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 3 November 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 14-27 of office action dated 16 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 3 November 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s assertion that reference character 106a appears to be pointing correctly at an exterior surface of the A-collar 106, the Examiner responds that the lead line associated with reference character 106a does not appear to be directed to the external surface of the A-collar that the second extension sections forms a seal with as disclosed.
In response to applicant’s argument that the term plurality is a collective noun in which the singular verb tense (is) should be used, the Examiner replies that usage of “is” or “are” in American English depends on if the group is acting as a single unit or if the focus is on individual members. At least claims 1, 6, 7, and 17-18 appear to focus on individual members. For example, the first extension sections are each at an angle of from 80 to about 100 degrees in claim 17. As a single unit, the first extension sections do not all extend at the same angle. Similarly, it is the not the single unit of recessed portions in claim 1 which receive a respective first extension section, but rather the individual recessed portions in claim 1 which receive a respective one of the first extension sections. Examiner concedes that claim 5 is proper when viewed as a single unit.
In response to applicant’s argument that the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin are located above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) than the bead that forms a ledge in the terminal portion 10 and that the portion (triangular-section second portion 14) in Benoit-Gonin that abuts its bead/ledge portion does not include any recesses or notches, the Examiner responds that there is no bead that forms a ledge in the terminal portion 10 in Benoit-Gonin that the portion (triangular-section second portion 14) abuts. The portion (triangular-section second portion 14) abuts the ring 51 on the container neck 50 (see fig. 3 & 5). If applicant is referring to the bottom of the notches 18, this structure abuts the projections 20 (see fig. 4).
In response to applicant’s argument that if the teachings of the projections 20 and the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin were used in Ellis this would modify several teachings or principles in Ellis, the Examiner responds that the modification does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and does not change any principle of operation.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ellis does not disclose, teach or suggest its band portion 14 (and more specifically annular flap 32 and annular first leg 36) extending upwardly to contact with an interior surface of the cap member 12, but rather its annular flap 32 terminates at an underneath portion of the peripheral bead/ledge area and that Ellis does not disclose, teach or suggest its annular first leg 36 contacting an interior surface of the skirt wall 18, but rather the annular first leg 36 of Ellis is specifically taught as contacting an underneath portion of the interior surface of its skirt wall 18, the Examiner responds that Ellis explicitly discloses that the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 contacts the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18 of the cap member 12 (see annotated partial fig. 1 above and C. 4 L. 55-59: “the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 to jam between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the ski[rt] wall 18 of the cap member 14”).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office Action states that Ellis would be modified by adding gaps in the plurality of first legs 36 and that one skilled in the art would not modify Ellis in this manner, the Examiner responds that no such modification occurred. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that if a modified first leg of Ellis would extend axially upward onto an internal wall of its skirt wall 18 to contact the added projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin then it would not be possible to abut the bead/ledge area with the first leg so as to provide the resistance specifically taught in Ellis and if a modified first leg in Ellis were to rest against an interior surface of the skirt wall 18, it would not make the locking engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42 possible because the annular first leg 36 would not be able to reside flush against both the frangible bridges 28 and an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 and thus the teaching in Benoit-Gonin of its projections 20/notches 18 would not be consistent with the principles and teachings in Ellis, the Examiner responds that Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 contacts an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 while also contacting the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 (see fig. 1 and C. 4 L. 55-59: “the first leg 36 of the annular flap 32 to jam between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the ski[rt] wall 18 of the cap member 14”). Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 resides flush against both the frangible bridges 28 and the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18 such that the latching engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42 is functional. The combination results in projections 20 extending from the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18 at locations of the gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extensions sections). The modification in light of Benoit-Gonin does not modify or require modification of the first leg 36 in any manner.
In response to applicant’s argument that if the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin into the closure configuration of Ellis were relocated this would be problematic because one skilled in the art would not relocate projections 20 on the bridge elements 28 of Ellis because of the increased difficulty (if even possibility) in separating the tamper-evident band into two components during the opening process, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not locate projections 20 on the bridge elements 28.
In response to applicant’s argument that if the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin into the closure configuration of Ellis were relocated this would be problematic because one skilled in the art would not relocate projections 20 directly adjacent to the bridge elements 28 in Ellis in the bead/ledge location because of the possibility or likelihood of affecting the force needed to break the bridge elements and specifically it would not be desirable to modify the force needed to break the bridge elements in Ellis from its optimal designed breakable force, where locating the projections 20 directly adjacent to the bridge elements would potentially increase the strength needed to break the bridge elements, the Examiner responds that the thickness and dimensions of the frangible bridge elements 28 of the combination, even with projections 20 located adjacently, are not modified in any manner and as such function identically to Ellis alone.
In response to applicant’s argument that manufacturing tolerances where the bridge elements are formed in a separate step from the remainder of the closure could also be problematic if the bridge elements are formed on or close to the projection, the Examiner replies that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand which does not require that the bridge elements be formed in a separate step from the remainder of the closure. Ellis provides factual evidence that its closure 1 is a one-piece molded plastic closure (see abstract). Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 are monolithically formed with the remainder of the closure 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there would not be sufficient room to form the claimed retention collars and respective recessed portions with their associated functionality using the propseod combination fo Ellis, Benoit-Gonin and Trout in the annular bead/ledge area of Ellis as the annular bead forming the ledge in Ellis has a small depth from the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 and also has a short height from the frangible bridges 13 and thus one skilled in the art would not locate the claimed retention collars and respective recessed portions in the smaller annular bead/ledge area of Ellis that receives the annular first leg 36 in the folded or the closed position, the Examiner replies that the factual evidence of Trout provides that it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art to provide an annular channel 54 of small depth behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) to restrain lip extensions 49f of ratchet-like tabs 49 (see fig. 10). Further, it is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See also id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In response to applicant’s argument that there would be problems with the spacing of the projections 20 taught by Benoit-Gonin as FIG. 1 of Benoit-Gonin shows large gaps or distances between adjacent projections 20 and this spacing of Benoit-Gonin would have too few points to hold the tamper-evident band from unfolding, the Examiner initially responds that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references. The spacing of the projections 20 of the combination is slightly wider than first legs 36. Additionally, this does not take into account the teachings of Trout. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is further noted that spacing of projections to hold the tamper-evident band from unfolding are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that by having the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin being larger than needed to receive its projections 20 the notches would not assist in holding the tamper-evident band from unfolding, the Examiner notes that notches assisting in holding the tamper-evident band from unfolding are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, this is a piecemeal analysis of the references which does not take into account the teachings of Trout.
In response to applicant’s argument that in the embodiment of Trout the annular leg 36 of Ellis would not extend above its bridge elements 28, which would necessitate the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin to be formed adjacent to the bridge elements 28 of Ellis and which also would necessitate that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin be formed on the bridge elements 28 to correspond to the notches 18, the Examiner replies that Trout is not the primary reference and is not modified by Ellis. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 extends above its bridge element 28. Trout teaches an inner cap 35 having an annular channel 54 behind an annular bead 55 (retention collar) and ratchet-like tabs 49 having lip extensions 49f which are tucked into a locked position within the annular channel 54 behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) (see fig. 10). As Ellis already discloses a channel between the lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the skirt wall 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.
In response to applicant’s argument that one skilled in the art would disagree with the Office Action’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art … to have modified the interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (polymeric annular skirt portion) to have an annular bead 55 (retention collar) closing off the interior of the recessed portions and to have modified the first legs 36 (first extension sections) to have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), as taught by Trout, in order to ensure that the annular flap 32 (second portion) is restrained in the folded position.”, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II.
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).
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736