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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 June 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Note
Examiner notes that the amendments to the claims are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c) as at least claim 12 has the status identifier of “Previously Presented” while being amended. For the purposes of compact prosecution the submission will be examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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, the plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding 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, the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding when the closure member 10 (closure) 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) are vertical in the folded position (see fig. 1).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) are 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) are 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, the plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding 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, the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding when the closure member 10 (closure) in the closed position.
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of first legs 36 (first extension sections) are 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) are 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, the plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding 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, the annular bead 55 (retention collar) being a plurality of retention collars assisting in preventing and inhibiting unfolding when the closure member 10 (closure) 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 5 June 2026 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 factual evidence at item 5 that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located on an inner surface of the terminal skirt portion 10, in which the projections 20 extend slightly into step 9.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 5 that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) the frangible bridges 13.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 5 that the projections 20 of 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. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. The declarant clarifies that he interprets the terminal skirt portion 10 in Benoit-Gonin to be an inwardly-extending square bead that forms a ledge which is shown at a bottom edge (further from the top plate 2) of the projections 20 in FIG. 1. Factually, the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located on an inner surface of the terminal skirt portion 10. As the projections 20 are on an inner surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 they cannot be located fully above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) the terminal skirt portion 10 in Benoit-Gonin which declarant interprets to be the argued bead, however, a portion of the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located above the terminal skirt portion 10.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 5 that the projections 20 are configured to be positioned into the notches 18 formed in the extension 15.
The declarant provides factual evidence that the annular flap 32 in Ellis abuts underneath a ledge/bead area formed at the bottom of the cap member 12 as shown in FIG. 1 of Ellis.
The declarant provides opinion evidence that the ledge/bead area formed at the bottom of the cap member 12 that the annular flap 32 abuts in Ellis would be the area directly on the bottom most (not interior) surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 of Benoit-Gonin. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. Factually, the area on the bottom most surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 of Benoit-Gonin does not make any contact with either of the second portion 14 or extension 15 and cannot be considered to be synonymous with the ledge/bead area formed at the bottom of the cap member 12 that the annular flap 32 abuts in Ellis (see annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
352
245
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 6 that the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin are taught to be specifically located on the inwardly extending terminal skirt 10 and then extending further upwardly (toward the top plate 2) to the step 9.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 7 that the annular first leg 36 of Ellis would not be able to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 located above its ledge/bead area (using the teaching of Benoit-Gonin) and still be able to have the locking engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection. The annular first leg 36 of Ellis is not disclosed as being able to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 that is located above its ledge/bead area that the annular flap 32 abuts underneath. The combination does not modify the annular first leg 36 of Ellis to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 that is located above its ledge/bead area that the annular flap 32 abuts underneath.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 7 that the statement in the Final Office Action that the “modification in light of Benoit-Gonin does not modify or require modification of the first leg 36 in any manner” is misleading, since it certainly changes the desired functionality in Ellis. The declarant does not provide any evidence to support this opinion. The declarant does not provide any “desired functionality” in Ellis which is changed. It is factual that 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 8 that if the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin of the closure configuration of Ellis were relocated it would be problematic because 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 possible) in separating the tamper-evidence band into two components during the opening process. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection which does not locate projections 20 on the bridge elements 28.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 9 that the legs 36 of Ellis are directly located against the frangible links or bridge elements 28.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 9 that projections from Benoit-Gonin that engage into gaps formed between the first legs 36 must be directly located against the frangible links or bridge elements 28. The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 9 that it is not clear how the projections 20 would not be located on the bridge elements 28. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support these opinions. Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 are formed on an inner surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 and that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) the frangible bridges 13. This factual evidence is acknowledged by declarant at item 5. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 extends above and past the frangible links or bridge elements 28 and 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”). In light of the teaching of Benoit-Gonin, in which the projections 20 are located extending inwardly from a skirt 3, above frangible bridges 13, and located to engage into notches 18 in the extension 15, the combination results in projections 20 extending inwardly from the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18, above frangible links or bridge elements 28, and at locations of the gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extensions sections).
The declarant provides opinion evidence that neither Ellis nor Benoit-Gonin support the statement that “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 factual evidence supplied by Ellis and Benoit-Gonin directly contributes to the location of the projections 20 in the combination as discussed above. If declarant intended to argue that neither Ellis nor Benoit-Gonin supports that unmodified frangible bridge elements 28 would function identically to Ellis alone, the Examiner points out that unmodified frangible bridge elements 28 will function as evidenced by Ellis.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 11 that whether the notches 18 of Benoit-Gonin or the spacing in the gaps of the plurality of first legs 36 in Ellis are used, the same issue remains - the annular channel 54 taught in Trout and implemented in the Ellis and Benoit-Gonin combination still would need to locate the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin in the gaps in the first legs 36 of Ellis right next to the bridge elements 28 of Ellis which would not be desirable to one skilled in the art. The declarant provides no factual evidence to support this opinion. The declarant does not provide any reasons as to why this would not be desirable to one skilled in the art.
The declarant provides factual evidence at item 12 that there is not any teaching in Benoit-Gonin on locating its projections 20 inside of an annular channel such as annular channel 54 of Trout.
The declarant provides opinion evidence at item 12 that based on the teaching of the annular channel 54 as shown in FIG. 10 of Trout it is not clear how the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin would fit into the annular channel 54. 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). As Ellis provides factual evidence of a channel between lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the skirt wall 18 (see fig. 1), 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. As the first legs 36 (first extension sections) of the combination have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), the projections 20 likewise have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) as Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 have a thickness which does not extend inwards past the extension 15 (see left side of figure 2 and 4). 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).
Declarant provides opinion evidence at item 13 that one skilled in the art would disagree with the Final Office Action’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill … 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 at item 13.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 3-5 of office action dated 9 March 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 5 June 2026.
The claim objections in paragraphs 6-10 of office action dated 9 March 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 5 June 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 11-14 of office action dated 9 March 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 5 June 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ellis does not require its band portion 14 (and more specifically annular flap 32) to extend 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 Examiner replies that contrary to applicant’s position, 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”).
In response to applicant’s argument that the statement that “Ellis does not require its band portion 14 (and more specifically annular flap 32) to extend 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” is not opinion evidence as erroneously asserted in the Final Office Action but factual evidence, the Examiner responds that this passage cannot be factual evidence as it is counter to the disclosure of Ellis. Ellis explicitly provides 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”). This disclosure/factual evidence of Ellis is opposite to applicant’s assertion that “Ellis does not require its band portion 14 (and more specifically annular flap 32) to extend upwardly to contact with an interior surface of the cap member 12”.
In response to applicant’s argument that projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are formed on an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 (nearer the top surface of the closure) than the bead forming a ledge, the Examiner responds that reference character 18 is directed to notches and not a skirt wall in Benoit-Gonin. Assuming applicant intended to state “skirt portion 10”, the Examiner replies that declarant has interpreted the skirt portion 10 to Benoit-Gonin which declarant to be the argued bead. As the projections 20 are formed on an interior surface of the skirt wall 10 they cannot be nearer the top surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 in Benoit-Gonin which declarant interprets to be the argued bead, however, a portion of the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located above the terminal skirt portion 10.
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 (located above the bead forming the ledge and the frangible bridge 13) 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 in a modified first leg in Ellis were to rest against an interior surface of the skirt wall 18 located above its ledge/bead area 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 tis projections 20/notches 18 would not be consistent with the principles and teachings in Ellis, the Examiner responds that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection at hand in as 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 the ledge/bead area formed at the bottom of the cap member 12 that the annular flap 32 abuts in Ellis would be the area directly on the bottom most (not interior) surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 of Benoit-Gonin, the Examiner responds that factually, the area on the bottom most surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 of Benoit-Gonin does not make any contact with either of the second portion 14 or extension 15 and cannot be considered to be synonymous with the ledge/bead area formed at the bottom of the cap member 12 that the annular flap 32 abuts in Ellis (see annotated fig. 3 above).
In response to applicant’s argument that the annular first leg 36 of Ellis would not be able to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 located about (Examiner assumes this was meant to read “above” to match the language of the declaration) its ledge/bead area (using the teaching of Benoit-Gonin) and still be able to have the locking engagement of the ratchet teeth 40, 42, the Examiner responds the annular first leg 36 of Ellis is not disclosed as being able to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 that is located above its ledge/bead area that the annular flap 32 abuts underneath. Additionally, the combination does not modify the annular first leg 36 of Ellis to rest against an interior surface of its skirt wall 18 that is located above its ledge/bead area that the annular flap 32 abuts underneath.
In response to applicant’s argument that the statement in the Final Office Action that the “modification in light of Benoit-Gonin does not modify or require modification of the first leg 36 in any manner” is misleading, since it certainly changes the desired functionality in Ellis, the Examiner replies that it is factual that 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 of the closure configuration of Ellis were relocated it would be problematic because 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 possible) in separating the tamper-evidence band into two components during the opening process, the Examiner replies that this argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection which does not locate projections 20 on the bridge elements 28.
In response to applicant’s argument that projections from Benoit-Gonin that engage into gaps formed between the first legs 36 must be directly located against the frangible links or bridge elements 28 because the legs 36 of Ellis are directly located against frangible link or bridge elects 28, the Examiner responds that Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 are formed on an inner surface of the terminal skirt portion 10 and that the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin are located above (i.e., closer to the top plate 2) the frangible bridges 13. This factual evidence is acknowledged by declarant at item 5. Ellis provides factual evidence that the first leg 36 extends above and past the frangible links or bridge elements 28 and 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”). In light of the teaching of Benoit-Gonin, in which the projections 20 are located extending inwardly from a skirt 3, above frangible bridges 13, and located to engage into notches 18 in the extension 15, the combination results in projections 20 extending inwardly from the inside diameter (interior surface) of the skirt wall 18, above frangible links or bridge elements 28, and at locations of the gaps between the plurality of first legs 36 (first extensions sections).
In response to applicant’s argument 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, and 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 the above statement is not evidence and is not factual evidence either as Ellis does not disclose, teach or suggest using projections like the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin so Ellis cannot support that statement, as the projections 20 in Benoit-Gonin are not located directly adjacent to its frangible bridges 13, and the projections 20 obviously are not discussed in the disclosure in Ellis, such that neither Ellis nor Benoit-Gonin supports this statement, the Examiner responds that the factual evidence supplied by Ellis and Benoit-Gonin directly contributes to the location of the projections 20 in the combination as discussed above. As the frangible bridge elements 28 are unmodified they will function as evidenced by Ellis.
In response to applicant’s argument that this is contrary to the submitted evidence from Mr. Jeremy Morin who stated that “locating the projections 20 directly adjacent to the bridge elements would potentially increase the strength needed to break the bridge elements”, the Examiner notes that this is opinion evidence. Examiner further notes that Mr. Jeremy Morins opinion evidence postulates a possibility and not a certainty.
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 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 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 Trout teaches that its annular bead 55 is located adjacent to but separate to the frangible elements 51 so as to form an annular channel 54 and in such an embodiment the annular first leg 36 of Ellis would not extend above its bridge elements 28 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 the annular channel 54 taught in Trout and implemented in the Ellis and Benoit-Gonin combination still would need to locate the projections 20 in the gaps in the first legs of Ellis right next to the bridge elements 28 of Ellis, the Examiner replies that this is a piecemeal analysis of the references. 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 the Final Office Action appears to be ignoring the teaching of Trout that its annular channel 54 is formed on one side with its frangible elements 51, the Examiner replies that no teaching of Trout is ignored. 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 the Final Office Action failed to substantively address the undesirability of locating the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin on the bridge elements 28 in Ellis, the Examiner notes that items 50-51 of the Final Office Action address locating the projections 20 on bridge elements 28.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is not any teaching in Benoit-Gonin on locating its projections 20 inside of an annular channel and that based on the teachings of the annular channel 54 of Trout it is not clear how the projections 20 of Benoit-Gonin would fit into the annular channel 54 and thus one skilled in the art would disagree with the Final Office Action’s conclusion that “[it] would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill … 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 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). As Ellis provides factual evidence of a channel between lower outer portion 47 of the peripheral bead 46 and the inside diameter of the skirt wall 18 (see fig. 1), 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. As the first legs 36 (first extension sections) of the combination have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar), the projections 20 likewise have a thickness to fit within the recessed portions behind the annular bead 55 (retention collar) as Benoit-Gonin provides factual evidence that the projections 20 have a thickness which does not extend inwards past the extension 15 (see left side of figure 2 and 4). 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 assertion that the Final Office Action has not substantively responded to many statements from the Mr. Morin, an acknowledged expert in the field of polymeric closures, by merely dismissing or disregarding the statements, the Examiner states that every statement of each declaration was considered.
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 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
Prosecution Insights