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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second layer being disposed on the cap top so as to cover only the cap top, or disposed on the cap top and a portion of the cap body close to a periphery of the cap top so as to cover the cap top and only the portion of the cap body close to the cap top without extending over the remainder of the cap body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (US-5839592-A) in view of Hanafusa et al. (US-20160052678-A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11-14, Hayes discloses a bottle cap (Fig. 5), comprising a cap (60) with a layered structure, wherein the cap comprises a first layer (62), a second layer (61) and a third layer (63), the first layer is an outer layer, the third layer is an inner layer, the second layer is an intermediate layer located between the first layer and the third layer (Fig. 5), and the second layer comprises at least one low oxygen-permeable barrier layer (col. 6, lines 37-38), wherein an oxygen transmission rate of the second layer is configured to be 0.0001-0.001cc/pkg*day and the barrier layer is manufactured as a EVOH copolymer film (col. 4, lines 31-40), wherein the cap comprises a cap top and a cap body, the cap top comprises the first layer, the second layer and the third layer, and the cap body comprises the first layer, and wherein the cap comprises a cap top and a cap body, and each of the cap top and the cap body comprises the first layer, the second layer and the third layer (Fig. 5), wherein the cap comprises a cap top and a cap body, and the second layer is disposed on the cap top and a periphery of a side of the cap body close to the cap top (Fig. 6), so that the second layer is adapted to cover a bottle mouth (68) to be covered, and a packaging bottle comprising a bottle body (68) and the bottle cap (60).
Hayes fails to teach the second layer is disposed on the cap top so as to cover only the cap top, or disposed on the cap top and a portion of the cap body close to a periphery of the cap top so as to cover the cap top and only the portion of the cap body close to the cap top without extending over the remainder of the cap body.
Hanafusa teaches that it is was known in the art to manufacture a bottle cap (1) with a cap top (2) and cap body (3) wherein a second layer (5) is disposed on the cap top so as to cover only the cap top, or disposed on the cap top and a portion of the cap body close to a periphery of the cap top so as to cover the cap top and only the portion of the cap body close to the cap top without extending over the remainder of the cap body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the second layer with a different size, as taught by Hanafusa, in order to reduce the amount of material needed and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Hayes discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above, and wherein portions of the bottle cap can have the claimed thickness (col. 8, lines 16-26), but fails to specifically teach the claimed thickness of the barrier layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the barrier layer with the claimed thickness, in order to adjust the barrier properties and in order adjust costs of the barrier layer. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes and Hanafusa in view of Gibbons et al. (US-4981739-A).
Hayes teaches that LDPE can be used for a layer (col. 4, lines 28-30) but fails to teach wherein the first layer and third layer are the same material.
Gibbons teaches that outer and inner layers can be manufactured from the same materials (col. 1, lines 47-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the layers to be the same material in order to adjust costs, use less materials, 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes and Hanafusa in view of Nomula (US-20050127082-A1).
Hayes teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above, but fails to teach wherein the first layer is made of polyolefin.
Nomula teaches that that it is known in the art to manufacture a layer with polyolefin (par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the first layer with polyolefin in order to adjust costs, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights