DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 18 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, the term “17wherein” should be “17 wherein” (requires spacing).
Regarding claim 27, the phrase “from the closure cap from the container body” is a typographical error. It appears the phrase “from the closure cap” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. 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.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a retention mechanism” in claims 7 and 18, which finds support in Specification paras. [0022] and [0023]:
[0023] … The stop or retention mechanism may prevent the movable tube 38 from rotating relative to the closure cap 18 once the movable tube 38 is fully moved to the extended configuration. By one approach, the movable tube 38 or the internal shaft 34 includes a depression or cavity that is configured to receive an extension element disposed on the other of the moveable tube 38 or the internal shaft 34.
[0023] By another approach, such as that shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the internal shaft 34
includes a protrusion or stop 56 along the threads and the movable tube 38 includes a corresponding protrusion 58. As shown, the protrusion 58 of the movable tube 58 extends radially outward from the threads 40 of the movable tube 38. The stop 56 of the internal shaft 34 may extend radially inward and into the path of the protrusion 58 of the movable tube 58. When the movable tube 38 is fully unthreaded from the remainder of the closure cap 18, the protrusion 58 of the movable tube 38 abuts the stop 56 of the internal shaft 34, thereby preventing the movable tube 38 from unthreading any further without substantial force.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 27 is 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 27, from which claims 28-31 depend, the term “the seal liner” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0011053 (Santos Leite) with evidence from US 2002/0179605 (Miani), in view of US 6,477,743 (Gross) and US 7,036,683 (Dubach).
Regarding claim 19, Santos Leite teaches a dispensing bottle (not taught) comprising:
a container body (E) having a neck (1.6) defining an opening (defined by rim 1.2), the neck including threads thereon (1.3);
a seal liner having a lower surface secured to the container body to seal the opening and an upper surface opposite the lower surface (not taught); and
a closure cap (2) having a base (4) including a dispensing opening (4.2) and a skirt (2.5) with threads thereon (2.1) configured to engage the threads (1.3) of the neck of the container body,
the closure cap including an extendable tube (1.1) forming a fluid flow channel to the dispensing opening, the extendable tube movable between a contracted configuration (initially sealed configuration) and an extended configuration (after-opening configuration) having increased axial length relative to the contracted configuration , wherein the extendable tube is in the contracted configuration when the closure cap is threaded to the container body with the extendable tube engaging the upper surface of the seal liner and is moved to the extended configuration as the closure cap is unthreaded from the closure cap from the container body.
Santos Leite fails to teach:
a) the container comprising a bottle;
a seal liner having a lower surface secured to the container body to seal the opening and an upper surface opposite the lower surface; and
b) the extendable tube is in the contracted configuration when the closure cap is threaded to the container body with the extendable tube engaging the upper surface of the seal liner.
Regarding limitation (a), Examiner notes Santos Leite teaches piercing a section (S) of the container end wall on which it is disposed (see Figure 1; para. [0071]).
Gross, analogous to containers with pierceable seals, teaches it is known to apply a similar rotationally-activated piercing closure (20) to a bottle (22) in order to pierce a liner (60) secured to the container body opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santos Leite, providing applying the closure to a bottle sealed with a liner as taught by Gross, motivated by the benefit of sealing said bottle and providing rotational access to the contents, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding limitation (b), Dubach, analogous to rotational piercing closures, teaches it is known to locate the teeth of the cutting element on the surface of the seal in the contracted configuration (see location of cutting areas 37 of teeth 33 located on surface 32 of opening spot S in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Santos Leite in view of Gross as above, providing the cutter teeth to be located on the surface of the liner as taught by Dubach, motivated by the benefit of a teeth location which will immediately penetrate the seal upon initial rotation, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 26, when the seal liner is removed and the closure cap is rethreaded to the container body, the tube having increased axial length extends into the neck of the container body (see extended position of cutter 8 in Miani Figure 5, which would be the analogous position of cutter 1.1 in Santos Leite after opening, creating an increased length tube through the pouring outlet).
9. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0011053 (Santos Leite) in view of US 6,477,743 (Gross) and US 7,036,683 (Dubach) as applied above to claim 19, and further in view of US 11,708,191 (Silla).
Regarding claim 25, the closure cap further includes a flip-top lid hingedly connected to the base such that the flip-top lid is movable between a closed position and an open position.
Silla, analogous to rotational piercing closures, teaches it is known to provide a flip-top lid (3b) hingedly connected to the base (hinge 3c) such that the flip-top lid is movable between a closed position (Figure 1A) and an open position (Figure 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Santos Leite, providing a hinged flip-top lid as taught by Silla, motivated by the benefit of accessing the container contents without having to fully remove the cap, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
10. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0011053 (Santos Leite) with evidence from US 2002/0179605 (Miani), in view of US 7,036,683 (Dubach).
Regarding claim 27, Santos Leite teaches a closure cap comprising:
a base (2) including a dispensing opening (4.2) and a skirt (2.5) with threads (2.1) thereon configured to engage the threads (1.3) of the neck (1.6) of a container body (E); and
an extendable tube (1.1) extending from the base and forming a fluid flow channel to the dispensing opening, the extendable tube movable between a contracted configuration (not shown; see evidence from Miani showing how the structure of Santos Leite functions to store the cutter in a contracted configuration in Figure 3) and an extended configuration having increased axial length relative to the contracted configuration (not shown; see evidence from Miani showing how closure fins like those of Santos Leite press against projections on the inner surface of the cutter ring, to deploy the cutter in an extended configuration in Figure 5), wherein the extendable tube is configured to be in the contracted configuration when the closure cap is threaded to the container body with an end of the extendable tube engaging the upper surface of the seal liner (not taught) and wherein the extendable tube is configured to move to the extended configuration as the closure cap is unthreaded from the closure cap from the container body (see evidence from Miani para. [0065] teaching how a closure like that of Santos Leite must be fully unscrewed in order to unseal the package).
Santos Leite fails to teach wherein the extendable tube is configured to be in the contracted configuration when the closure cap is threaded to the container body with an end of the extendable tube engaging the upper surface of the seal liner.
Dubach, analogous to rotational piercing closures, teaches it is known to locate the teeth of the cutting element, analogous to the extendable tube of Santos Leite, on the surface of the seal in the contracted configuration (see location of cutting areas 37 of teeth 33 located on surface 32 of opening spot S in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Santos Leite, providing the cutter teeth to be located on the surface of the liner as taught by Dubach, motivated by the benefit of a teeth location which will immediately penetrate the seal upon initial rotation, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 1-18 are allowed.
12. Claims 20-24 and 28-31 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.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2-10 depend, Santos Leite fails to teach the movable tube has an extension that engages at least one of the neck of the container body and the liner such that when the closure cap is at least partially unthreaded from the container body, the movable tube is retained in position relative to the container body and the liner to thereby expand the expandable serum well as the closure cap is unthreaded from the container body. By contrast, Santos Leite teaches the movable tube (cutter 1.1) being rotated relative to the liner in order to cut through it.
The closest reference the Examiner was able to find regarding the concept was US 7,549,547 (Herr), whereby unscrewing of a closure maintains a seal (11) in position; however, the reference fails to teach a moveable tube having an extension creating an expandable serum well.
Regarding claim 11, from which claims 12-18 depend, Santos Leite fails to teach that the movable tube has an extension that engages the liner such that when the closure cap is subsequently at least partially unthreaded from the container body, the movable tube is retained in position relative to the container body and the liner to thereby expand the expandable serum well. By contrast, Santos Leite teaches the movable tube (cutter 1.1) being rotated relative to the liner in order to cut through it. The closest reference the Examiner was able to find regarding the concept was US 7,549,547 (Herr), whereby unscrewing of a closure maintains a seal (11) in position; however, the reference fails to teach a moveable tube having an extension creating an expandable serum well.
Regarding claim 20, from which claims 21-24 depend, Santos Leite fails to teach that the upper surface of the liner inhibits the second portion of the tube from rotating with the first portion of the tube thereby unthreading the second portion of the tube from the first portion of the tube moving the extendable tube to the extended configuration. By contrast, Santos Leite teaches the movable tube (cutter 1.1) being rotated relative to the liner in order to cut through it.
Regarding claim 28, from which claims 28-31 depend, Santos Leite fails to teach that the seal liner inhibits the second portion of the tube from rotating with the first portion of the tube thereby unthreading the second portion of the tube from the first portion of the tube and moving the extendable tube to the extended configuration. By contrast, Santos Leite teaches the movable tube (cutter 1.1) being rotated relative to the liner in order to cut through it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733