DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment filed 7/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17 and 19-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/1/2026.
The drawings were received on 7/31/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The specification was received on 7/31/2026. This specification is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, line 1, the recitation “force” appears to be amended to recite “the force” in order to refer to “force” recited in claim 1, line 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschmann et al. (US 2016/0206807 A1) in view of Mench et al. (US 10,722,680 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Hirschmann discloses a tamper-evident closure 10 (figure 1), comprising:
an enclosure (enclosure formed by elements 100 and 102) including a first part 100 and a second part 200 rotatable relative to the first part 100 between an open position (see figure 2) and a closed position (see figure 1), wherein, in the closed position (see figure 1), the first and second parts co-operatively define a holding cavity (hollow portion inside elements 100 and 200), wherein the enclosure defines an access point 260 (figure 5, see element 260b in figure 22 for further zoomed view to under the point of access into the holding cavity) therethrough into the holding cavity; and
a securing strap 118, comprising:
a first securing strap portion (portion of element 100 in contact with element 100 and remains in contact with element 100 when element 130 is pulled, paragraph 0058) extending from the first part 100; and
a second securing strap portion (remaining portion of element 118 getting separated from element 100 due to tear when element 130 is pulled) extending from the first securing strap portion and including a latch extension 128 configured to couple to the second part 200, wherein an area of weakness (paragraph 0058, area where tear occurs when element 130 is pulled) is defined between the first and second securing strap portions;
wherein a force (paragraph 0058, force needed to form tear in element 118 due to pulling element 130 in the pulling direction is less than force needed to separate the securing strap from the elements 100 or 200 otherwise, element 118 would get separated from element 100 or 200 before tearing occurs) to break the area of weakness is less than a force to separate the securing strap from the first part or the second part. Hirschmann is silent regarding the latch extension configured to irreversibly couple to the second part.
However, Mench teaches a design of a tamper evident closing device (figures 8A-8C) wherein the latch extension 808 is irreversibly coupled (column 21, lines 45-51) to the second part 802 for the purpose of providing tampering evidence if the closure device is operated (column 2, lines 11-27).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the coupling between the latch extension and the second part to include an irreversible coupling as taught by Mench for the purpose of providing tampering evidence if the closure device is operated (column 2, lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 20, Hirschmann discloses wherein the second part 200 defines a slot 268 through sized to receive the latch extension 128 but is silent regarding a receiving latch arranged in the slot and configured to engage the latch extension within the slot to irreversibly secure the second securing portion to the second part.
However, Mench teaches a receiving latch (see “L” in figure 8B below) arranged in the slot (slot that receives element 808) and configured to engage the latch extension within the slot to irreversibly secure the second securing portion to the second part (column 21, lines 45-51) for the purpose of using a well-known alternative latch connection means to provide tampering evidence if the closure device is operated (column 2, lines 11-27).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the second part of Hirschmann to incorporate a receiving latch arranged in the slot and configured to engage the latch extension within the slot to irreversibly secure the second securing portion to the second part as taught by Mench for the purpose of using a well-known alternative latch connection means to provide tampering evidence if the closure device is operated (column 2, lines 11-27).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 15-17 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Hirschmann et al. (US 2016/0206807 A1) is silent regarding an access point sized to receive the tube therethrough based on the body being received within the holding cavity in combination with other claimed limitations of claim 1.
Claims 3-10 and 12-17 being dependent on claim 1 are also indicated allowable.
The closest prior art of record, Hirschmann et al. (US 2016/0206807 A1) in view of Mench et al. (US 10,722,680 B1), is silent regarding wherein the second part comprises a tear strip configured to engage the first part along a perimeter of the first part to maintain the second part in the closed position in combination with other claimed limitations of claim 21.
Claims 22 and 23 being dependent on claim 21 are also indicated allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of the present rejection.
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 NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-9689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
