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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on December 30, 2025 wherein: claim(s) 1, 5, 14 were amended, claim(s) 15 previously canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claim(s) are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103 as well as their objections. Therefore, claim(s) 1-14, 16 are pending and will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected since --wherein the detachable applicator has an elongate shape, the ratio of the width to the thickness of the elongate detachable applicator being 4:1 to 50:1, the detachable applicator being demounted easily.-- [lines 13-15] since --the width-- / --the thickness-- lack antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, --the width-- / --the thickness-- will be interpreted as --a width-- / --a thickness--.
Claim(s) 2-14, 16 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al. (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20170115904A) hereinafter BYUN, in view of Finel (France Patent Application Publication FR2548630A1) hereinafter FINEL.
Regarding claim 1, BYUN teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 below) a closure 120, 200 for a container 110, the closure 120, 200 comprising
a cap 120 and
a detachable applicator 200,
wherein:
(a) the cap 120 comprises a roof B3-02 and an attachment mechanism (R) arranged on the roof B3-02,
wherein the attachment mechanism (R) is arranged inside of the cap 120;
(b) the detachable applicator 200 is horizontally attached to the roof B3-02 by the attachment mechanism (R);
(c) the detachable applicator 200 comprises a proximal side B4-01 close to the roof B3-02 and a distal side B4-02 opposite to the proximal side B4-01 and spaced from the roof B3-02; and
(d) both the proximal B4-01 and distal B4-02 sides, have a substantially same contour as the portion of the roof B3-02 where the proximal side B4-01 sits (FIGS. 2, 4),
wherein the detachable applicator 200 has an elongate shape (FIGS. 1, 2, 4), the ratio of the width B1-03 to the thickness B4-03 of the elongate detachable applicator 200 being 4:1 to 50:1, the detachable applicator 200 being demounted easily.
BYUN fails to teach detachable applicator 200 is vertically attached to the roof B3-02 by the attachment mechanism (R).
However, FINEL teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 below) closure 2 wherein detachable applicator 3 is vertically attached to the roof F1-05 by the attachment mechanism 4 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detachable applicator 200 in the closure 120, 200 of BYUN with detachable applicator 3 as taught in the closure 2 of FINEL to meet design requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
860
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
530
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
527
603
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
756
658
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
536
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
424
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) detachable applicator 200 is attached to the roof B3-02 by shape locking (rectangular peg (P) in rectangular hoe (R)).
Regarding claim 3, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) closure 120, 200 wherein the attachment mechanism (R) comprises a snap peg to snap-fit the detachable applicator 200.
However, FINEL teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) closure 2 wherein the attachment mechanism 4 comprises a snap peg F1-06 to snap-fit the detachable applicator 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the a rt at the time of filing to have modified detachable applicator 200 of BYUN and FINEL to include snap peg F1-06, as disclosed by FINEL, because FINEL shows that snap peg F1-06 and rectangular peg (P) are equivalent structures known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ340 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 4, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) closure 120, 200 wherein the attachment mechanism (R) comprises at least one support element to support the detachable applicator 200.
However, FINEL teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) closure 2 wherein the attachment mechanism 4 comprises at least one support element F1-07 to support the detachable applicator 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the a rt at the time of filing to have modified attachment mechanism (R) of BYUN to include at least one support element F1-07, as disclosed by FINEL, because FINEL shows that attachment mechanism (R) and attachment mechanism 4 are equivalent structures known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ340 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 5, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. FINEL fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) closure 2 wherein the snap peg F1-06 is arranged substantially centrally between the first support pair, and second support pair,.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified closure 120, 200 of BYUN and FINEL to comprise a first support pair, / second support pair, for securement purposes of the detachable applicator 200. Moreover, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) the detachable applicator 200 has substantially plane symmetry (Y) - (Z) (FIGS. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 7, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) the detachable applicator 200 has substantially plane symmetry with respect to the horizontal plane (X) - (Y) (FIGS. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 8, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) the detachable applicator 200 has substantially plane symmetry with respect to the vertical plane (X) - (Z).
Regarding claim 9, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) the detachable applicator 200 has substantially threefold plane symmetry [(Y) - (Z)], [(X) - (Y)], [(X) - (Z)].
Regarding claim 10, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) wherein the detachable applicator 200 is an elongated plate (see Figure 1, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) closure 120, 200 wherein the ratio of the length B1-02 to the width B1-03 of the detachable applicator 200 is 1.5:1 to 10:1, preferably 3:1 to 6:1.
However, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of BYUN and arrange ratio of length B1-02 to width B1-03 in the detachable applicator 200 of BYUN and FINEL to meet design requirements since dimensions (i.e., length B1-02 / width B1-03) are result effective variables influencing size. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
Regarding claim 12, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) wherein the length of the detachable applicator 200 is substantially that of the roof B3-02 (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) container 110, 120, 200 comprising a closure 110, 120 and a container body 110.
Regarding claim 16, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 4 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. FINEL fails to teach (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 3 above) closure 2 wherein the support element F1-07 comprises a first support pair, and a second support pair,.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified attachment mechanism (R) in the closure 120, 200 of BYUN and FINEL to comprise a first support pair / second support pair for securement purposes of the detachable applicator 200. Moreover, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYUN, in view of FINEL, in further view of Crusius (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20160001941A1) hereinafter CRUSIUS.
Regarding claim 13, BYUN and FINEL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. BYUN fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 4 above) closure 120, 200 wherein the closure 120, 200 comprises a fitment B2-01 wherein the cap 120 is pivotably attached to the fitment B1-01.
However, CRUSIUS teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 below) a package 1 wherein the closure 12, 41, 42 comprises a fitment 10 wherein the lid 12 is pivotably attached to the fitment 10 for ease of use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified cap 120 in the closure 120, 200 of BYUN and FINEL with lid 12 as taught in the package 1 of CRUSIUS for ease of use.
PNG
media_image8.png
963
720
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
220
801
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103 in the reply filed December 30, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections (i.e., 35 USC § 103) does not rely on exactly combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thorpe et al. (U. S. Patent US10813433B2): Teaches a “lid” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Amrine (U. S. Patent US2106313A): Teaches a “cover” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Kawashima et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2000313470A): Teaches a “storage” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735