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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. For example, claim 6 recites “the second cut 602” in line 3 without parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 7, line 4: “a line parallel to the axis” should read “the line parallel to the axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the retaining ring comprises a retaining portion and a free portion which extend as far as a free edge” at lines 13-14. It is unclear whether only the free portion extends as far as the free edge, or whether both the retaining portion and the free portion extend as far as a free edge. Applicant’s specification shows the free portion and the retaining portion extending to different free edges 304’ and 304’’, respectively (see e.g., Fig. 1).
Claim 9 recites “an engaging element configured to internally engage with the stop ring of the neck which comprises an engaging wall which is bent around the free edge and projects inwards in the cap” at lines 2-4. It is unclear which structure is referred to with “which comprises an engaging wall” and “which is bent around the free edge and projects inwards in the cap”. Is this referring to the engaging wall, the neck, the stop ring, or the engaging element? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “an engaging element configured to internally engage with the stop ring of the neck, the engaging element comprises an engaging wall that is bent around the free edge and projects inwards in the cap.”
Claim 11 recites “a median line of the joining zone, along a line parallel to the axis, is positioned circumferentially within a reference angular portion, wherein said reference angular portion has an amplitude which is less than or equal to 60° around the axis and has a bisector plane which is defined by a first axis, parallel to the axis, placed at the start of the inner thread structure and a second axis which is diametrically opposed to the first axis, wherein preferably said reference angular portion is equal to 40°” in lines 6-11. This limitation is indefinite for at least these reasons:
It is unclear what structure is defining the “reference angular portion.”
It is unclear whether the second axis is within the reference angular portion. To the extent it is, it is unclear what is meant by “diametrically opposed” if both the first and second axes are within the reference angular portion and the reference angular portion is less than or equal to 60.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the reference angular portion “has an amplitude which is less than or equal to 60°” and also “preferably said reference angular portion is equal to 40°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “a shape for example convex” in line 5. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “a projection” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “projection” recited in claim 1 at line 9, or something else. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the projection.”
Claim 14 recites “several first portions have a predetermined length, which may vary around the axis” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether each of the several first portions has the same predetermined length, or whether each of the several first portions has a different predetermined length. It is further unclear whether the “may vary around the axis” is referring to within a single first portion, or across the several first portions.
Claim 14 recites “two first portions having predetermined length” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the two first portions have the same predetermined length, or each first portion has a separate predetermined length.
Claim 14 recites “an end wall” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “end wall” recited in claim 13 at line 4, or something else. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the end wall.”
Claim 20 recites “the third angular portion” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this should read “a third angular portion,” or whether the claim should be dependent from claim 3.
Claims 2-21 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2022/0340339 to Naumann et al. (hereinafter, “Naumann”).
Regarding claim 1, Naumann discloses a closing cap (closure device 10, Fig. 1) for a container (container 12, Fig. 1), comprising a lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1 below) extending around an axis (annotated Fig. 1) and a transversal wall (annotated Fig. 1) positioned at one end of the lateral wall (see annotated Fig. 1), a separating line (annotated Fig. 1) being provided on the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) to define a retaining ring (TE band 16, Fig. 1), which is configured to remain anchored to the neck of the container (neck 24 of container 12, see para. [0163]), and a closing element (cap body 14, Fig. 1) removably engageable with the neck (neck 24, paras. [0161]-[0163]), so as to open or close the container (see paras. [0161]-[0163]); wherein the separating line (annotated Fig. 1) extends around the axis (annotated Fig. 1) and is circumferentially interrupted to define in the lateral wall a joining zone (annotated Fig. 1), which extends circumferentially for a first angular portion (angular portion defined by joining zone in annotated Fig. 1), in which the retaining ring (TE band 16) and the closing element (cap body 14) are joined (see Figs. 1-3); wherein the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) comprises a first cut (annotated Fig. 1), a second cut (annotated Fig. 1) and a projection (lip 96, Fig. 1), which projects from the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) and is configured to rest on the neck in an open condition (see Fig. 6A), wherein the first cut (annotated Fig. 1) and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1) extend circumferentially within a second angular portion (angular portion extending between first and second cuts in annotated Fig. 1) which is contained in the first angular portion (see Fig. 1) and the projection (lip 96) is circumferentially positioned between the first cut (annotated Fig. 1) and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1); wherein the retaining ring (TE band 16) comprises a retaining portion (annotated Fig. 1) and a free portion (annotated Fig. 1) which extend as far as a free edge (annotated Fig. 1), the retaining portion (annotated Fig. 1) being configured to internally engage with a stop ring (annular flange 28, Fig. 3; para. [0164]) of the neck (neck 24), during a passage from a closed condition (Fig. 1) to an open condition (Fig. 3) of the closing element (cap body 14); the free portion (annotated Fig. 1) being configured to allow an axial movement (see Fig. 2) at least of the second angular portion (angular portion extending between first and second cuts in annotated Fig. 1) of the retaining ring (TE band 16) during said passage (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naumann Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Naumann further discloses the retaining ring (TE band 16) comprises a recess (opening 90, Fig. 2) which extends circumferentially for a fourth angular portion (angle formed by width of opening 90, see Fig. 2), containing the second angular portion (fourth angular portion is larger than angular portion extending between first and second cuts), to facilitate resting of the projection on the neck in the open condition (para. [0181]; Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Naumann further discloses the free portion (annotated Fig. 1) extends circumferentially for a third angular portion (see Figs. 1-2), which contains at least the second angular portion (angular portion extending between first and second cuts in annotated Fig. 1); and wherein the size of the fourth angular portion (angle formed by width of opening 90) is less than or equal to the third angular portion (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Naumann further discloses along a line parallel to the axis (axis in annotated Fig. 1) the height of the first cut (annotated Fig. 1) and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1) is at least equal to a height of the projection (height of first and second cuts is greater than the height of the projection, see Fig. 1), wherein in particular the first cut (annotated Fig. 1) and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1) extend along a line parallel to the axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Naumann further discloses the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) comprises two zones (annotated Fig. 1) which extend parallel to the axis (annotated Fig. 1), which have a first thickness (see e.g., Fig. 5), along a line perpendicular to the axis (see Fig. 5), which is less than a second thickness of the lateral wall positioned adjacent to them (see Fig. 5; thickness is greater at least at textured gripping surface 60 and/or threads 52), wherein each cut, of the first cut and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1), is made in a respective zone (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Naumann further discloses the free portion (annotated Fig. 1) extends as far as the free edge (annotated Fig. 1) and is delimited by it (see Fig. 1); or wherein the free portion comprises a plurality of projecting elements which are bent around the free edge and project inwards in the cap, the length of the projecting elements of the free portion being such that they do not engage with the stop ring during the passage to the open condition of the closing element.
Regarding claim 11, Naumann further discloses an inner thread structure (threads 52, Fig. 3), positioned on the inside of the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1; Fig. 3) and configured to engage with an outer thread structure (threads 54, Fig. 3) of the neck (neck 24) in such a way as to removably couple the closing element to the neck of the container (para. [0164]), the inner thread structure (threads 52) having a start (end of thread in Fig. 3) placed near the separating line (see Fig. 3); wherein a median line of the joining zone (line at axis in annotated Fig. 1), along a line parallel to the axis (see annotated Fig. 1), is positioned circumferentially within a reference angular portion (see Fig. 1), wherein said reference angular portion has an amplitude which is less than or equal to 60° around the axis (the reference angular portion extends around the axis, with the middle being at the start of threads 52 in Fig. 3) and has a bisector plane which is defined by a first axis (first axis extends through start of thread shown in Fig. 3), parallel to the axis (annotated Fig. 1), placed at the start of the inner thread structure (threads 52) and a second axis which is diametrically opposed to the first axis (axis opposite first axis), wherein preferably said reference angular portion is equal to 40°.
Regarding claim 12, Naumann further discloses the first cut (annotated Fig. 1), the second cut (annotated Fig. 1) and/or the projection (lip 96) are, at least partly, contained in the closing element (cap body 14) and in the retaining ring (TE band 16, see Fig. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naumann as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2015/0129534 to Falzoni (hereinafter, “Falzoni”).
Regarding claim 9, Naumann further discloses the retaining portion (TE band 16) comprises an engaging element (portion of TE band extending radially inward as shown in Fig. 3) configured to internally engage with the stop ring of the neck (annular flange 28, Fig. 3).
Naumann does not expressly disclose the engaging element comprises an engaging wall which is bent around the free edge and projects inwards in the cap; wherein the engaging wall is provided with a plurality of projecting elements, shaped like flaps, whose length is such that they can engage with the stop ring, during the passage to the open condition of the closing element.
Falzoni teaches a similar closing cap for a container comprising a lateral wall (lateral wall 3, Fig. 15), a transversal wall (upper wall 2, Fig. 15), and a separating line defining a retaining ring (security ring 6, Figs. 15-18; paras. [0061]-[0062]) and a closing element (see Figs. 15-18). Falzoni teaches the retaining portion comprises an engaging element (lip 9, Fig. 6) configured to internally engage with a stop ring of the neck of a container (para. [0039]). Falzoni teaches the engaging element (lip 9) comprises an engaging wall (portion 94, Fig. 6) that is bent around a free edge (see Fig. 6) and projects inwards in the cap (see Fig. 6). Falzoni teaches the engaging wall (portion 94) is provided with a plurality of projecting elements (portion 93, Fig. 6) shaped like flaps (see Fig. 6) and having a length such that they can engage with the stop ring during passage to the open condition (para. [0043]). Falzoni further teaches that this engaging element arrangement facilitates the first insertion of the closing cap onto the neck of the container (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing cap of Naumann to form the engaging element having an engaging wall that is bent around the free edge to project inwards and with a plurality of projecting elements as taught by Falzoni for the purpose of facilitating the first insertion of the closing cap onto the neck of the container, as recognized by Falzoni (see para. [0043]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naumann as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of FR-3108317 to Rime (hereinafter, “Rime”). Note – a copy of Rime is attached to the IDS dated April 25, 2024.
Regarding claim 13, Naumann further discloses the projection (lip 96) projects from the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) outwards for a length measured along a line which is transversal (lip extends in a direction transverse to the lateral wall, see Figs. 3, 6A), in particular perpendicular (see Figs. 3, 6A), to the axis (annotated Fig. 1) in the closed position of the closing element (Fig. 1).
Naumann does not expressly disclose the length is variable around the axis to define a projection having an end wall with a shape for example convex.
Rime teaches a similar closing cap for a container comprising a lateral wall, a transversal wall, and a retaining ring (see Fig. 6). Rime teaches a projection projects from the lateral wall (locking member 23, Fig. 6). Rime teaches that the projection projects outwards for a length measured along a line which is transversal to the axis in the closed position (length extending out of the page in Fig. 7), and the length is variable around the axis to define a convex shape (see Fig. 7). Rime teaches the projection comprises a plurality of portions positions around the axis (annotated Fig. 7 below). Rime teaches several first portions have a predetermined length around the axis (see Fig. 7), and other second portions have a length equal to zero and are positioned between two first portions (annotated Fig. 7) such that the projection has an end wall that is interrupted (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
422
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rimes Annotated Figure 7
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing cap of Naumann to form the projection as a plurality of first portions and second portions and having an end wall with a convex shape as taught by Rimes for the purpose of improving a user’s grip on the projection, and because it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47).
Regarding claim 14, Naumann as modified by Rime already includes the projection comprises a plurality of portions (Rime, annotated Fig. 7) which are positioned around the axis (Rime, see Fig. 7), wherein several first portions have a predetermined length (Rime, annotated Fig. 7), which may vary around the axis (Rime, see Fig. 7), and other second portions (Rime, annotated Fig. 7) have a length equal to 0 and are positioned between two first portions having predetermined length (Rime, see Fig. 7), in such a way that the projection has an end wall which is interrupted (Rime, see Fig. 7), but which has a convex shape (Rime, see Fig. 7).
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naumann.
Regarding claim 15, Naumann appears to disclose the projection (lip 96) extends around the axis (annotated Fig. 1) for a respective angle greater than or equal to 4° and less than or equal to 50° (see Fig. 1).
To the extent that this angle is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the projection to have an angle between 4° and 50° because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, Naumann further discloses the projection (lip 96) has a height, measured along a line parallel to the axis (see e.g., Fig. 6A)
Naumann does not expressly disclose the height is greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 4.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the projection to have a height between 1.0 and 4.5 mm because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 17, Naumann further discloses the projection (lip 96) projects from the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 1) for a length measured along a line transversal to the axis in the closed position of the closing element (width of lip 96 in Fig. 1).
Naumann does not expressly disclose the projection length is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 5.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the projection to have a length between 0.5 and 5.0 mm because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Naumann appears to disclose the first angular portion defined by the joining zone (angular portion defined by joining zone in annotated Fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 120° (see Fig. 1).
To the extent that this angle is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the angular portion defined by the joining portion to be between 20° and 120° because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 19, Naumann appears to disclose the second angular portion defined between the first cut and the second cut (annotated Fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 10° and less than or equal to 70° (see Fig. 1).
To the extent that this angle is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the angular portion defined by the first and second cuts to be between 10° and 70° because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 20, Naumann appears to disclose the third angular portion defined by the free portion (see annotated Fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 30° and less than or equal to 210° (see Fig. 1).
To the extent that this angle is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the angular portion defined by the free portion be between 30° and 210° because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 21, Naumann appears to disclose a fourth angular portion defined by the recess (angular portion defined by opening 90, Fig. 1) is greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 120° (see Fig. 1).
To the extent that this angle is not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the angular portion defined by the recess be between 20° and 120° because it has been held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 4, Naumann does not disclose each cut extends as far as the free edge to define a tab as claimed. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Naumann to have such an arrangement in combination with the other claim elements without changing the principle of operation of the base reference.
Regarding claim 5, Naumann does not disclose each cut comprises a respective breakable element suitable for breaking when the cap is opened for the first time to define a tab as claimed. Instead, Naumann discloses a single breakable element arranged between the first and second cuts (see Fig. 2). It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Naumann to have such an arrangement in combination with the other claim elements without changing the principle of operation of the base reference.
Claim 6 would be allowable based on its dependence from claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pub. 2024/0025095 to Scherer et al. discloses a closing cap for a container comprising a closing element and a retaining ring, the retaining ring having a joining portion, and a projection projects from the lateral wall (see Figs. 1-10).
U.S. Pub. 2024/0002116 to Berroa Garcia discloses a closing cap for a container comprising a closing element and a retaining ring, first and second cuts defining a joining portion, and a projection projects from the lateral wall (see Figs. 1-9).
U.S. Pub. 2023/0034260 to Omori et al. discloses a closing cap for a container comprising a closing element and a retaining ring, the retaining ring having a joining portion, and a projection projects from the lateral wall (see Figs. 1-10).
U.S. Pub. 2021/0229873 to Berroa Garcia discloses a closing cap for a container comprising a closing element and a retaining ring, first and second cuts, and a projection that projects from the lateral wall having a convex shape (see Figs. 1-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733