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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wilton (US 3796338).
Claim 1: Wilton discloses a tamper evident closure for containers having a threaded neck and a locking shoulder comprising: a top 1 and skirt 2, together reading on the claimed shell, of a ductile metal [C. 2 L. 62-63] having a skirt 2 (annular skirt), defining a cavity, the skirt 2 (annular skirt) having a plan portion 6 (upper portion) having threads projecting into the cavity for engaging the threaded neck and a lower portion; a peripheral slit between the lower portion and a security band 3 (tuck ring) interrupted by a plurality of strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges), a plurality of pairs of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) spaced from one another by a slit 21 (gap), and a plurality of vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) one of each in registration with a respective slit 21 (gap), the security band 3 (tuck ring) being adapted to be turned under the shoulder for locking therewith, the weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) and the security band 3 (tuck ring) breaking upon removal of the closure to divide the security band 3 (tuck ring) into sections 18 (segments) between the vertical slits 16 (vertical splits), the sections 18 (segments) bend radially outward along the strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges) by a camming action on the locking shoulder on removal of the entire closure from the container (see fig. 3).
Claim 3: Wilton discloses wherein the strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges) and the pairs of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) alternate about a periphery of the top 1 and skirt 2 (shell) (see fig. 3-4).
Claim 4: Wilton discloses wherein there are three strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges), six weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges), and three vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) (see fig. 3-4).
Claim 5: Wilton discloses wherein the vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) are equally circumferentially spaced (see fig. 4).
Claim 6: Wilton discloses wherein each strong bridge 19’ (hinge bridge) of the plurality of strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges) is larger than each weak bridge 20 (sacrificial bridge) of the plurality of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) (see fig. 3 and 4).
Claim 7: Wilton discloses knurling 8 (knurled pattern) on an outer surface of the top 1 and skirt 2 (shell) (see fig. 3).
Claim 1: Wilton discloses a tamper evident closure for containers having a threaded neck and a locking shoulder comprising: a top 1 and skirt 2, together reading on the claimed shell, of a ductile metal [C. 2 L. 62-63] having a skirt 2 (annular skirt), defining a cavity, the skirt 2 (annular skirt) having a plan portion 6 (upper portion) having threads projecting into the cavity for engaging the threaded neck and a lower portion having a security band 3 (tuck ring), and a peripheral slit between the lower portion and the security band 3 (tuck ring) interrupted by pairs of strong bridges 19 separated by third gaps, together reading on the claimed hinge bridges, a plurality of pairs of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) spaced from one another by a slit 21 (gap), and a plurality of vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) one of each in registration with a respective slit 21 (gap), the security band 3 (tuck ring) being adapted to be turned under the shoulder for locking therewith, the weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) and the security band 3 (tuck ring) breaking upon removal of the closure to divide the security band 3 (tuck ring) into sections 18 (segments) between the vertical slits 16 (vertical splits), the sections 18 (segments) bend radially outward along the pairs of strong bridges 19 separated by third gaps (hinge bridges) by a camming action on the locking shoulder on removal of the entire closure from the container (see fig. 3).
Claim 4: Wilton discloses wherein there are three pairs of strong bridges 19 separated by third gaps (hinge bridges), six weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges), and three vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) (see fig. 1-2).
Claim 13: Wilton discloses wherein each pair of strong bridges 19 separated by third gap (hinge bridge) has two strong bridges 19 (segments) separated by a third gap (see fig. 1-2 and C. 4 L. 11-16).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton (US 3796338).
Claim 2: The combination inherently or in the alternative obviously produces an audible sound of 50-70 db to indicate a first opening of the container upon breaking of the weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) and vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical closure to the inventions claimed tamper evident closure and as the material of the prior art closure and claimed tamper evident closure of the invention are both metal. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that an audible sound of 50-70 db does not accompany the breaking of the weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) and vertical slits 16 (vertical splits) to indicate a first opening of the container. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim 11: The combination inherently or in the alternative obviously requires at least six folds to separate a section 18 (tuck ring segment) from the closure after the closure is removed from the container as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical closure to the inventions claimed tamper evident closure and as the material of the prior art closure and claimed tamper evident closure of the invention are both metal. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show that a section 18 (tuck ring segment) does not require at least six folds to separate the section 18 (tuck ring segment) from the closure. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton (US 3796338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barokes (DE 212013000188).
Claim 8: Wilton discloses the claimed invention except the ductile metal being an aluminum alloy.
Barokes teaches an aluminum screw cap made from 8011 or 3105 aluminum alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the closure out of 8011 or 3105 aluminum alloy, as taught by Barokes, due to its good formability and strength 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the aluminum alloy is 3105 (EN AW-3105).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilton (US 3796338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perry (US 3837519).
Claim 10: Wilton discloses the claimed invention except wherein the closure has an opening torque with the container of from 3 lbf.in (3.44 kgf.cm) to 13 lbf.in (14.95 kgf.cm).
Perry teaches a closure that requires 4 inch pounds to rupture a score line 22 upon unscrewing (see C. 9 L. 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the closure have an opening torque with the container of 4 inch pounds, as taught by Perry, in order to allow the closure to be more easily openable by the elderly and disabled and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 12: Wilton discloses the claimed invention except wherein the shell has a thickness of from 0.18 mm to 0.23 mm.
Perry discloses a tamper indicating container closure of aluminum alloy having a thickness of between 0.007 and 0.010 inch (0.1778 to 0.254 mm) (see claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the closure have thickness of between 0.007 and 0.010 inch (0.1778 to 0.254 mm), as taught by Perry, in order to be thin to reduce materials and associated costs and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 3-7 of office action dated 15 January 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 14 April 2026.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., each pair of sacrificial bridges being positioned between a pair of hinge bridges by a second gap, the sacrificial bridges are located between the hinge bridges within a segment, the sacrificial bridges being positioned between the hinge bridges, the specific sequence of hinge bridge - sacrificial bridge pair- hinge bridge, vertical splits in registration with a central portion of the first gap, the vertical split to be located in the middle of the first gap, the first gap being the space that separates the two individual bridges within a single sacrificial pair, the vertical splits to be located precisely in the middle of this gap, the vertical split effectively dividing the first gap, the vertical split located within the first gap, the vertical split be located in the central portion of the first gap, the second gap being larger than the first gap) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that in Wilton the hinge (strong) bridges are located centrally within a segment, while the sacrificial (weak) bridges are positioned at the ends of the segment and that therefore Wilson teaches the opposite structural arrangement from that required by Claim 1 and does not disclose the claimed bridge ordering, the Examiner replies that claim 1 does not recite any specific relationship between the hinge bridges and pairs of sacrificial bridges. When viewing the original disclosure it is abundantly clear that the pairs of sacrificial brides are positioned at ends of segments 132 and hinge bridges 116 are located centrally within a segment 132 identically to the layout of Wilton.
In response to applicant’s argument that in Wilton the hinge bridges are between the sacrificial bridges, not the other way around and that the hinge bridges 19’ of Wilton are positioned between the sacrificial bridges 20 and not the other way around as in present claim 1, the Examiner replies that claim 1 does not recite any specific relationship between the hinge bridges and pairs of sacrificial bridges. En arguendo, as Wilton discloses the arrangement of strong bridge 19’ (hinge bridge) - pair of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) - strong bridge 19’ (hinge bridge) - pair of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges), Wilton does disclose the argued arrangement of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) between strong bridges 19’ (hinge bridges) (see fig. 3-4).
In response to applicant’s arguments directed to the disclosure of figures 1-2, the Examiner replies that these cannot be found to be persuasive as the rejection relies on the embodiment of figure 3.
In response to applicant’s argument that Wilton teaches a sequence of sacrificial bridge pair at one end - hinge bridge(s) - sacrificial bridge pair at other end within each segment instead of the claimed specific sequence of hinge bridge - sacrificial bridge pair - hinge bridge, the Examiner initially responds that claim 1 does not recite any specific relationship between the hinge bridges and pairs of sacrificial bridges. Further, the embodiment of figures 3-4 of Wilton does not disclose a sacrificial bridge pair at one end within each segment as argued. Within each section 18 (segment) there is a single weak bridge 20 (sacrificial bridge) at each end. En arguendo, Wilton clearly discloses the argued claimed specific sequence of strong bridge 19’ (hinge bridge) - pair of weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) - strong bridge 19’ (hinge bridge) (see fig. 3-4).
In response to applicant’s argument that the vertical slit 16 is not positioned in the middle of the short horizontal slit 21 (the first gap), the Examiner replies that claim 1 does not recite this structural arrangement. En arguendo, the Examiner directs attention to figure 3 which clearly depicts the vertical slit 16 being positioned in the middle of the short horizontal slit 21.
In response to applicant’s argument that the short horizontal slit 21 is a small, contained feature located only between the two weak bridges 20 of a pair, well within the boundary of a single segment 18, the Examiner responds that this is not factual. Wilton provides factual evidence of “sections 18, separated from each other by the slits 16”. As the short horizontal slit 21 extends to both sides of the slit 16 it cannot be “well within the boundary of a single segment 18”.
In response to applicant’s argument that the short horizontal slit 21 and vertical slit 16 are not “in registration” and that the vertical split (16) and the short slit (21) are spatially distinct and not in registration, the Examiner responds that figures 1 & 3 clearly show a vertical slit 16 (vertical split) leading into, and therefore in registration with, a short horizontal slit 21 (gap).
In response to applicant’s argument that the vertical slits (16) separate the segments (18) and are merely near the weak bridges (20), not in registration with the gap (21) between them, the Examiner responds that figures 1 & 3 clearly show a vertical slit 16 (vertical split) leading into, and therefore in registration with, a short horizontal slit 21 (gap).
In response to applicant’s argument that in Wilton the vertical split 16 is what separates one entire segment 18 from the next and is not located within the short horizontal slit 21 (the first gap) that separates the two weak bridges 20 of a pair, the Examiner replies that Wilton discloses a vertical slit 16 (vertical split) leading into, and therefore in registration with, a short horizontal slit 21 (gap) as required by claim 1 and discloses a vertical slit 16 (vertical split) leading into and therefore located within the short horizontal slit 21 (gap) that separates the two weak bridges 20 (sacrificial bridges) of a pair (see fig. 1 and 3).
In response to applicant’s argument that inherency requires inevitability, not possibility and that the Office Action provides no evidence that Wilton necessarily exhibits the claimed configuration or behavior and absent such inevitability inherency cannot be established, the Examiner replies that once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant MPEP 2112 V. In each instance in which inherency was relied upon, the Examiner established that the prior art disclosed a structurally identical closure to the inventions claimed tamper evident closure.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights