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 were received on 19 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation of claim 1 of “the skirt having … a lower portion having a tuck ring, and a peripheral slit between the lower portion and the tuck ring” fails to comply with the enablement requirement. How can a peripheral slit be between the lower portion and the tuck ring if the tuck ring is part of the lower portion? The tuck ring cannot both be part of the lower portion and separate from the lower portion. The Wands factors of MPEP 2164.01(a) have been considered. Based upon the state of the prior art presented in the attached PTO-892, the level of ordinary skill in the art presented in those references, the level of predictability (strong in the mechanical arts), and the amount of direction provided (as presented above), the quantity of experimentation needed to make the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the claims is undue.
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.
Claims 1-13 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation of claim 1 of “the skirt having … a lower portion having a tuck ring, and a peripheral slit between the lower portion and the tuck ring” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the tuck ring is part of the lower portion or if a peripheral slit extends between the lower portion and the tuck ring. It is also unclear if the tuck ring is part of the skirt and if the peripheral slit is in the skirt. From the original disclosure there is/are “a hinge bridge connecting a tuck ring segment to a skirt of the capsule” and “hinge bridges … connecting the tuck ring 114 to the lower portion 108 of the skirt 104”. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if it read “the skirt having … a lower portion; a peripheral slit between the lower portion and a tuck ring”.
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 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 having a security band 3 (tuck ring), and a peripheral slit between the lower portion and the 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 drawing objections in paragraphs 2-5 of office action dated 20 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 19 December 2025.
The specification objections in paragraphs 6-7 of office action dated 20 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 19 December 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 8-12 of office action dated 20 June 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 19 December 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., a tuck ring that is divided into segments before the closure is opened, a second gap that is larger than the first gap, an increase in folds to remove the tuck ring segment from the capsule which means more complete recyclability of the closure) 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 Wilton fails to disclose a tuck ring that is divided into segments before the closure is opened as the sp[l]it includes a small bridge near the lower end (“17”), at a small distance inwardly from the bottom end of the split to prevent deformation of the security band before application to a bottle under the light forces to which it may be subjected in, for example, the hopper of a closure seal-applying machine, such that Wilton’s security band is not divided into segments before the closure is opened, the Examiner responds that Wilton discloses that “the security band 3 is formed as virtually three separate sections 18, separated from each other by the slits 16” (see C. 4 L. 11-13). Additionally, Wilton discloses that “the bridge 17 is … frequently fractured during application of the closure to a bottle” (see C. 4 L. 7-10), which results in the argued limitation.
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 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