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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rosberg (US 4523497 A).
Regarding claim 12, Rosberg discloses a safety cap removal tool, comprising: a baseplate comprising a width extending from a first side of the baseplate to a second side of the baseplate and a height extending from a third side of the baseplate to a fourth side of the baseplate (see annotated FIG. 1 below: base 2 comprising a width extending from a first side of the base to a second side of the base and a height extending from a third side of the base to a fourth side of the base)
a nest block attached to a surface of the baseplate, the nest block arranged adjacent the first side of the baseplate and the third side of the baseplate; (jaw element 8 attached to a surface of the base 2, the jaw 8 arranged adjacent the first side and the third side of the base)
wherein the nest block comprises at least one safety cap contact surface; (jaw 8 comprises teeth which are surfaces to contact the safety cap and thus safety cap contact surfaces)
a pivot arm comprising a length extending from a pivot end of the pivot arm to an actuation end of the pivot arm, the pivot arm rotationally engaged with the baseplate at a pivot disposed at the pivot end of the pivot arm, (handle 22 comprising a length extending from a pivot end to the end of grip 22A, the handle 22 rotationally engaged with the base 2 at the pivot, identified in the annotated FIG. 2 below, disposed at the pivot end of the handle)
wherein the pivot is arranged adjacent the second side of the baseplate; (the pivot is arranged adjacent the second side of base 2)
and wherein the pivot arm comprises a clamp surface arranged facing the at least one safety cap contact surface; (handle 22 comprises teeth, which are surfaces that serve to clamp the safety jar and thus clamp surfaces, arranged facing the teeth of jaw 8)
a safety cap receiving space disposed between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block, the safety cap receiving space inset from the width of the baseplate a dimension from the first side and a dimension from the third side of the baseplate; (see FIG. 2: space for receiving a cap in aperture 6 disposed between the teeth of handle 22 and teeth of jaw element 8, the receiving space in aperture 6 inset from the width of the base 2 a dimension from the first side and a dimension from the third side)
and a lip extending a distance from the clamp surface of the pivot arm in a direction toward the nest block, (jaw part 53 extends a distance from the teeth of handle 22 in a direction towards jaw 8; see FIGS. 1 and 2) wherein the lip overlaps a portion of the safety cap receiving space, (jaw part 53 overlaps a portion of the receiving space)
and wherein the distance corresponds to a wall thickness of an outermost cap of a child-resistant safety cap of a bottle (the distance corresponds to a wall thickness of an outermost cap of a safety cap of a bottle, capable of being a child-resistant safety cap; Note: the plain definition of “corresponds to” according to dictionary.cambridge.org is “to match or be similar or equal to something.” Since the distance is similar to a wall thickness of the outermost cap, it meets the definition above and thus the definition of the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
662
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Rosberg further discloses that the pivot arm is moveable between an open position relative to the nest block and a closed position relative to the nest block, wherein, an area of the safety cap receiving space in the open position is greater than an area of the safety cap receiving space in the closed position (handle 22 is moveable between an open position relative to jaw element 8 and a closed position relative to jaw element 8 wherein an area of the receiving space in aperture 6 in the open position is greater than an area of the receiving space in aperture 6 in the closed position; see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
693
873
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
662
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Rosberg further discloses that the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block define clamping surfaces of the safety cap removal tool arranged in the safety cap receiving space (the teeth of handle 22 and the teeth of jaw 8 define surfaces that clamp the safety cap, and thus clamping surfaces, of the safety cap removal tool arranged in the space for receiving the safety cap.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Rosberg further discloses that the clamping surfaces are configured to contact a cylindrical surface of the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle at least at opposite sides of the cylindrical surface when the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle is disposed in the safety cap receiving space and in contact with the surface of the baseplate (the clamping surfaces on jaw means 20 and jaw teeth 10 are configured to contact a cylindrical surface of the cap C—if the cap C is of a child-resistant safety cap variety, then the outermost cap would be in contact with the tool—when the outermost cap of the cap C is disposed in the receiving space in aperture 6 and in contact with the surface of base 2).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated in this rejection. The tool of Rosberg further teaches that the nest block comprises a V-shaped recess, (there are V-shaped recesses in between the teeth of jaw element 8) and wherein the at least one safety cap contact surface comprises a first surface of the V-shaped recess and a second surface of the V-shaped recess (the surfaces that contact the safety cap comprise a first surface and a second surface of the V-shaped recess highlighted below).
PNG
media_image5.png
700
1117
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rosberg Fig. 2 Close-Up Annotated
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosberg in view of Hoefer (DE2703513A).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Rosberg does not disclose that the lip is a portion of a head of a screw that is attached to the pivot arm. However, Hoefer, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to tools for removing safety caps, teaches a lip that is a portion of a head of a screw that is attached to an arm (see FIG. 1: head 16 of lifting elements 15 attached to shaft body 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lip of Rosberg to be a head of a screw attached to the pivot arm, as taught by Hoefer. One would have been motivated to make such a modification as an inexpensive means of opening the cap with minimal deformation (¶[0004] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Rosberg, as modified, further teaches that the actuation end of the pivot arm comprises an aperture that passes completely through a thickness of the pivot arm (see FIG. 4: the end of handle 22 that actuates the pivoting comprises hole 23 that passes completely through a thickness of handle 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s argument on Pages 9-10 regarding the Examiner’s mapping of the receiving space, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the Applicant has misunderstood the position of the Examiner. In the Non-Final Rejection, the cap receiving space has been defined not as aperture 6 denoted by Rosberg, but as the general empty space between the jaw elements denoted by the shaded region, including aperture 6, shown in the Figures reproduced below from the original rejection of claim 13.
PNG
media_image3.png
693
873
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
662
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As such, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111). As outlined in the 103 rejection above, Rosberg and/or Hoefer stands to read on claims 12-17 and 21.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the arrangement in the instant application allows “the bottle and the innermost cap of the bottle [to] be quickly and easily separated from the outermost cap” on Page 12 of the Applicant’s argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner opines that the prior art does not disclose or render obvious “a method of removing an outermost cap from a child- resistant safety cap, comprising: providing a safety cap removal tool, comprising :a baseplate comprising a width extending from a first side of the baseplate to a second side of the baseplate and a height extending from a third side of the baseplate to a fourth side of the baseplate; a nest block attached to a surface of the baseplate, the nest block arranged adjacent the first side of the baseplate and the third side of the baseplate, wherein the nest block comprises at least one safety cap contact surface; a pivot arm comprising a length extending from a pivot end of the pivot arm to an actuation end of the pivot arm, the pivot arm rotationally engaged with the baseplate at a pivot disposed at the pivot end of the pivot arm, wherein the pivot is arranged adjacent the second side of the baseplate, and wherein the pivot arm comprises a clamp surface arranged facing the at least one safety cap contact surface; a receiving space disposed between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block, the receiving space inset from the width of the baseplate a dimension from the first side and inset from the width of the baseplate a dimension from the third side of the baseplate; and a lip extending a distance from the clamp surface of the pivot arm in a direction toward the nest block, wherein the lip overlaps a portion of into the receiving space; positioning a child-resistant safety cap of a bottle into the receiving space of the safety cap removal tool such that a top surface of the child-resistant safety cap is disposed in contact with the surface of the baseplate and a cylindrical surface of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle is disposed in contact with at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block; causing the pivot arm to rotate about the pivot in a first direction and arranging the clamp surface of the pivot arm in contact with the cylindrical surface of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle and clamping the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block, wherein the lip extends the distance over a wall thickness of an outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle without contacting any part of an innermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle; and applying a force to the bottle such that the bottle and the innermost cap of the bottle separate from the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle while the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle remains clamped between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block.”
The Examiner notes that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Rosberg with steps of clamping the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block, wherein the lip extends the distance over a wall thickness of an outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle without contacting any part of an innermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle; and applying a force to the bottle such that the bottle and the innermost cap of the bottle separate from the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle while the outermost cap of the child-resistant safety cap of the bottle remains clamped between the clamp surface of the pivot arm and the at least one safety cap contact surface of the nest block.
Such a modification would have required improper hindsight reasoning to change the basic principle under which the primary reference was designed to operate.
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 CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
