DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 in response to Office Action 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues that the amendment of the function extenuating the cap to be held/secured “in an open position” is not taught by primary prior art Babcock (page 9 para 1). Examiner agrees, and points out the new scope of the amendment has necessitated a new grounds of rejection. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Applicant argues that Babcock does not teach that the protrusions are cap parking protrusions (page 10 para 1 lines 1-2). However examiner points out this argument is merely piecemeal analysis as secondary prior art Krautkramer teaches parking the cap on those protrusions when the cap is held in an open position, as fully amended. But claim 16 is allowed.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Applicant argues that since Babcock is cited as securing the tether band to the tether band holding portion first, Krautkramer cannot then teach tethers that allow the cap to open while simultaneously holding the tether band (page 6 remaining lines of para 1). In other words, the tether band is secured beneath the tether band holding portion in Babcock, so bodily incorporating the tethers from Krautkramer into it would still place the tethers beneath the holding portion, thereby be blocked from rising to open the cap. Examiner disagrees, pointing out that a POSITA would at least see Krautkramer Fig 7 and understand that the two functions are not mutually exclusive, but operate together (i.e. hold tether band beneath holding portion and open cap with tethers). But claim 16 is allowed.
Examiner Note
Claim 14 would be allowable if amended to positively recite a system including the neck of claim 1 (should claim 1 be amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 7; see allowable matter at the end)
Regarding claim 14, "A cap configured to close the neck according to claim 1, the cap comprising" should read "A system comprising the neck according to claim 1 and a cap configured to close the neck, the cap comprising" to positively claim the neck.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20020134747 by Babcock et al. (hereinafter “Babcock”) in view of WO 2021018772 by Krautkramer (hereinafter “Krautkramer”).
Regarding claim 1, Babcock teaches a neck (Title, package, Fig 1, neck shown on a package that is container 14) for a food package ([0022] “fruit juices” are from fruit which is food), the neck comprising
a main body having an upper part configured to be closed with a cap (Fig 1, a neck main body has a neck upper part that is shown capable of closing by a cap 12), a lower part configured to be attached to the food package (Fig 4, a lower part proximal to shoulder 44 of the neck is shown capable of attaching to package 14, Fig 1), and a neck wall extending between the upper part and the lower part along a main axis of the neck (Fig 4, a neck wall between the upper part and lower part of the neck, vertically along a main axis extends (i.e. along elements 42, 44, and through 46 to the upper part)), the neck wall having a wall thickness along a direction transverse to the main axis (Figs 4-5 shows a transverse thickness of the neck wall), and a tether band holding portion (Fig 4, 46 is a portion of the neck holding a band 26) configured to hold the cap to the neck via a tether band (Fig 1, 26 is a tether tamper band, wherein 46 holds cap 12 by engaging 26), wherein
an outside surface of the neck wall is provided with cap parking protrusions (see examiner annotated Babcock Figure 4, hereinafter “EAFB4”; EAFB4, protrusions, shown capable of parking the cap, Fig 1 when assembled), the cap parking protrusions having an extension in the direction transverse to the main axis which is less than 50% of the wall thickness (EAFB4, dotted line shows protrusions thickness (arrow to dotted line) is less than 50% of the neck wall thickness (between two arrows), from viewer perspective proportionally (not specifically) via dimensions of 42; wherein [0035] outer surface neck diameter is “1.370 inches”, and outer surface of 42 is “1.484 inches” meaning for example a radial thickness of 42 is 0.114 inches (which is in the hundredths of significant figures for millimeters, see depending range claims), thereby showing enough proportionality the thicknesses).
[AltContent: textbox (third)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
410
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Babcock does not explicitly teach holding the cap to the neck via a tether band when the cap is in an open position.
Krautkramer, however, discloses that a tether band (Fig 3, band 3 with tethers 15 and 16 on opposite sides of the lower edge of the cap wall, Fig 7, and towards tether band holding portion/flange 23) has a cap wall lower edge pulled into contact with at least a container neck parking protrusion to secure/hold the cap in open position (Figs 4C & 5-8, wherein Figs 4C, 5, 6A & 7, a cap wall “lower edge 11a” is shown contacting the neck, and Fig 7 shows twisting of tether strip 15 for the disclosed torsion applying pulling force, page 6 para 5 last line, “Retaining straps [15, 16] that hold the cap in the wide open position by pulling”, and Figs 7 & 8A-8B show cap parking protrusions 24A, 24B and 26 contacted by cap wall lower edge 11a in a cap open and secure position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the band of Babcock to have tethers as taught by Krautkramer thus allowing the cap wall lower edge of Krautkramer to contact the parking protrusions of Babcock while its cap is secured in the open position as taught by Krautkramer in order to retain the cap versus littering or losing the cap to not reclose by the user. For example, Krautkramer protrusion 26 (Fig 8B) is like Babcock’s top protrusion (EAFB4), and 24A-B (Fig 8A) is like Babcock’s bottom protrusion (EAFB4), so since Krautkramer discloses contacting either 24/26 a POSITA would recognize contact is capable for both Babcock’s protrusions, meeting “configured to hold the cap to the neck via a tether band when the cap is in an open position”.
Regarding claim 2, Babcock/Krautkramer does not explicitly teach that the cap parking protrusions (EAFB4, protrusions) are arranged with a center to center distance, along the main axis, of 0.4-0.8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a center to center distance, along the main axis, of 0.4-0.8 mm, recognizing that an decrease in protrusions’ spacing/distance is directly correlated to minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating material and weight savings, which is a desirable characteristic as desired by Babcock ([0035] “The desired tamper-evident arrangement is thus provided while minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating weight savings and economical manufacture”), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Babcock/Krautkramer does not explicitly teach that the extension of the cap parking protrusions (EAFB4, protrusions thickness) is 0.05-0.6 mm, 0.05-0.4 mm or 0.05-0.20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at an extension/thickness of 0.05-0.6 mm, 0.05-0.4 mm or 0.05-0.20 mm, recognizing that a decrease in thickness is directly correlated to minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating material and weight savings, which is a desirable characteristic as desired by Babcock ([0035] “The desired tamper-evident arrangement is thus provided while minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating weight savings and economical manufacture”), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Babcock further teaches the outside surface of the neck wall is provided with at least three cap parking protrusions (EAFB4, protrusions, plus at least a third protrusion which is a tooth 42, are shown on the outer surface of the neck wall (between 44 and the upper part)).
Regarding claim 5, Babcock further teaches the cap parking protrusions extend around the circumference of the neck wall (EAFB4, protrusions extend around the circumference of the neck wall).
Regarding claim 6, Babcock/Krautkramer does not explicitly teach that the cap parking protrusions have a thickness (meaning vertical height) of 0.20 – 0.50 mm in a direction being parallel to the main axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a height thickness of 0.20 – 0.50 mm in a direction being parallel to the main axis for each, recognizing that a decrease in thickness is directly correlated to minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating material and weight savings, which is a desirable characteristic as desired by Babcock ([0035] “The desired tamper-evident arrangement is thus provided while minimizing the dimensions of the neck portion, thus facilitating weight savings and economical manufacture”), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Babcock further teaches the tether band holding portion (46) has a form of a flange extending around the main body (Fig 4, 46 is shown as a flange extending around the neck main body (i.e. above the neck lower part)), wherein the cap parking protrusions are arranged between the flange (46) and the upper part of the main body, as seen along the main axis (EAFB4 shows protrusions vertically between the upper part and 46).
Regarding claim 10, Babcock further teaches the flange (46) has a flange extension in the direction transverse to the main axis (Fig 4, a flange 46 extension is its radial thickness), wherein the extension (i.e. protrusion thickness) is less than the flange extension (Fig 4, the thickness of the protrusions is shown to be less than the flange 46 thickness).
But Babcock/Krautkramer does not teach a specific less-than proportion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness/extension of the protrusions to be less than 25% of the flange extension as nearly disclosed by Babcock, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. the protrusions are capable of parking the cap), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
Regarding claim 11, Babcock/Krautkramer further teaches a neck and cap arrangement for closing a food package, the neck and cap arrangement comprising the neck according to claim 1 (see claim 1, Babcock, cap 12 engaging container/package 14 neck), and a cap (Babcock, 12) configured to be arranged on the neck (Babcock, on the neck), the cap comprising
a top configured to close the upper part of the neck (Babcock, a top of 12 closes the neck upper part), a cap wall extending from the top (Babcock, 18), and a tether band (Babcock, 26) configured to connect the cap to the tether band holding portion of the neck (Babcock, connects to 46) such that the cap is secured to the neck when the cap is in an open position (Krautkramer, Figs 4C & 7), wherein
the tether band (Krautkramer, Fig 3, 3 with tethers 15 and 16 on opposite sides of the lower edge of the cap wall) is configured to pull a lower edge of the cap wall into contact with the cap parking protrusions of the neck wall when the cap is in the open position (Babcock modified by Krautkramer, Figs 4C & 5-8, wherein Figs 4C, 5, 6A & 7, a cap wall “lower edge 11a” is shown contacting the neck, and Fig 7 shows twisting of tether strip 15 for the disclosed torsion applying pulling force, page 6 para 5 last line, “Retaining straps [15, 16] that hold the cap in the wide open position by pulling”, and Figs 7 & 8A-8B show cap parking protrusions 24A, 24B and 26 contacted by cap wall lower edge 11a in a cap open and secure position). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Babcock/Krautkramer further teaches the tether band (Babcock, Fig 1, 26) comprises a first tethered band portion (Krautkramer, Figs 3 & 7, 15) and a second tethered band portion (Krautkramer, Fig 3, 16) which extend from the lower edge of the cap wall, on opposite sides of the lower edge (Krautkramer, Fig 3, 15 and 16 on opposite sides of the lower edge of the cap wall) and towards the tether band holding portion (Krautkramer, Fig 7, and towards tether band holding portion/flange 23). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, Babcock further teaches the tether band (Fig 1, 26) comprises a ring-shaped section (30 forms a ring shaped section) that is connected to the tether band holding portion (Fig 1, 30 is connected to 46).
Regarding claim 14, Babcock further teaches a cap configured to close a neck according to claim 1 (as in claim 1, Fig 1, cap 12 closes the neck of the container/package 14), the cap comprising
a top configured to close an upper part of the neck (a top of 12 closes the neck upper part), a cap wall extending from the top (18) and having a cap end edge located opposite the top (a cap edge of 18 is proximal band 26), a tether band having a top edge attached to the cap end edge (a top edge of the band 26 is shown attached to the cap edge of 18), the tether band (26) having a bottom edge (a bottom edge of 26) located opposite the top edge (a top edge of 26),
But Babcock does not explicitly teach a cap capability to remain securely attached to the neck when the cap is open and broken from the band, as allowed by specific cuts in the tether band.
Krautkramer, however, teaches a similar tether tamper cap comprising:
being configured to connect the cap to a tether band holding portion of the neck for securing the cap to the neck when the attachment of the tether band to the cap end edge is broken (Fig 7, the attachment (e.g. by weakening lines) of the cap to band 3 is broken but the cap is open and shown securely attached to the neck),
a first cut (Fig 3, page 13, para 3, “weakening line 13” is a first cut in 3, wherein “A line of weakness can generally be a circumferential, uniform material weakening, which can be produced, for example, by an incision that does not completely penetrate the material of the guarantee strip 3 or the transition to the cap shell 2, or it is a cut that completely extends through the wall thickness of the guarantee strip 3 incision, which is interrupted at individual points by easily breakable bridges”) located between the cap end edge and the top edge of the tether band (13 is between a cap end edge and a band top edge, because though 3 is shown separately, 3 is actually injection molded with the cap, so the tiny portion above 13 is part of the cap), the first cut separating the cap end edge from the tether band along at least 270 degrees of a circumference of the tether band (Fig 3, 13 is shown at at least one value greater than 270 degrees (since 225-135 is 90, and 360-90 is 270, but 13 extends longer than that)), and a second cut located between at least a portion of the first cut and the bottom edge of the tether band (Fig 3, “weakening line 14” is a second cut shown between 13 and the bottom edge of 3), the second cut cutting though the tether band along 90°-270° of a circumference of the tether band (Fig 3, 14 is shown greater than 90 degrees and at at least a value less than 270 degrees (since 270-90 is 180 and 14 extends less than the angle between 315 and 45 degree markers (i.e. less than 270 since 315-45 is 270))). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the band of Babcock to have tethers formed by cuts as taught by Krautkramer thus allowing the cap wall lower edge of Krautkramer to contact the parking protrusions of Babcock while its cap is secured in the open position as taught by Krautkramer in order to retain the cap versus littering or losing the cap to not reclose by the user.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at a first cut at least 270 degrees and a second cut 90-270 degrees, recognizing that a decrease in cut angle/distance is directly correlated to “an increase in the distance between the ends of the separator [11 that contacts the neck (Fig 7)] from the bottle neck and thus to a corresponding increase in the tensile force in the retaining straps [15 and 6] that hold the cap in the wide open position” (Krautkramer, page 6, para 5, line last three of attached NPL) for the first cut, and for the second cut recognizing that a decrease in cut angle/distance is directly correlated to increased tension for more secure stable open position of the cap versus jostling due to shorter tether length from a shorter cut, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Babcock further teaches a food package (Title, package, Fig 1, container 14) for holding a food product (for said fruit juice [0022]), the food package comprising a neck and cap arrangement according to claim 1 (see claim 1 neck details and cap 12 arranged) and a carton-based body (examiner interprets under broadest reasonable interpretation “carton-based” to mean “carton shaped”; Fig 1, shows 14 as carton shaped body) for holding the food product and to which the neck and cap arrangement is attached for closing the food package (Fig 1, cap 12 is for closing the package neck).
Regarding claim 17, Babcock teaches a neck and cap arrangement for closing a food package (Fig 1, cap 12 closes the neck of the container/package 14 of [0022] “fruit juices”), the neck and cap arrangement comprising:
a neck (Fig 1, neck shown around label 14) comprising a main body having an upper part (Fig 1, an upper part of the neck is shown capable of being closed by the cap), a lower part configured to be attached to the food package (Fig 4, a lower part of the neck proximal to shoulder 44 is shown capable of attaching to the package), and a neck wall extending between the upper part and the lower part (Fig 4, a neck wall is a middle part between the upper and lower parts) along a main axis of the neck (i.e. along elements 42, 44, and through 46 to the upper part), the neck wall having a wall thickness along a direction transverse to the main axis (Figs 4-5 shows a transverse thickness of the neck wall), and a tether band holding portion (Fig 4, 46 is a portion of the neck holding a band 26); and
a cap (12) configured to be arranged on the neck (is mounted on neck), the cap comprising a top configured to close the upper part of the neck (a top of 12 closes the neck upper part), a cap wall extending from the top (18), and a tether band (26) configured to connect the cap to the tether band holding portion of the neck (connects to 46), wherein an outside surface of the neck wall is provided with cap parking protrusions (EAFB4, protrusions, capable of parking the cap), the cap parking protrusions having an extension in the direction transverse to the main axis which is less than 50% of the wall thickness (EAFB4, dotted line shows protrusions thickness (arrow to dotted line) is less than 50% of the neck wall thickness (between two arrows), from viewer perspective proportionally (not specifically) via dimensions of 42; wherein [0035] outer surface neck diameter is “1.370 inches”, and outer surface of 42 is “1.484 inches” meaning for example a radial thickness of 42 is 0.114 inches (which is in the hundredths of significant figures for millimeters, see depending range claims), thereby showing enough proportionality the thicknesses),
But Babcock does not explicitly teach holding the cap to the neck via a tether band when the cap is in an open position.
Krautkramer, however, discloses that a tether band (Fig 3, band 3 with tethers 15 and 16 on opposite sides of the lower edge of the cap wall, Fig 7, and towards tether band holding portion/flange 23) has a cap wall lower edge pulled into contact with at least a container neck parking protrusion to secure/hold the cap in open position (Figs 4C & 5-8, wherein Figs 4C, 5, 6A & 7, a cap wall “lower edge 11a” is shown contacting the neck, and Fig 7 shows twisting of tether strip 15 for the disclosed torsion applying pulling force, page 6 para 5 last line, “Retaining straps [15, 16] that hold the cap in the wide open position by pulling”, and Figs 7 & 8A-8B show cap parking protrusions 24A, 24B and 26 contacted by cap wall lower edge 11a in a cap open and secure position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the band of Babcock to have tethers as taught by Krautkramer thus allowing the cap wall lower edge of Krautkramer to contact the parking protrusions of Babcock while its cap is secured in the open position as taught by Krautkramer in order to retain the cap versus littering or losing the cap to not reclose by the user. For example, Krautkramer protrusion 26 (Fig 8B) is like Babcock’s top protrusion (EAFB4), and 24A-B (Fig 8A) is like Babcock’s bottom protrusion (EAFB4), so since Krautkramer discloses contacting either 24/26 a POSITA would recognize contact is capable for both Babcock’s protrusions, meeting “configured to pull a lower edge of the cap wall into contact with the cap parking protrusions of the neck wall when the cap is in the open position”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (into claims 1 and 17 only) including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Wherein the underlined phrase with null citation “(-)” could not be taught.
Regarding claim 7, Babcock discloses the outside surface of the neck wall is provided with external threads (Fig 4, 40) for engaging the cap (Fig 1, cap 12 engages said thread via its thread shown in skirt 18), wherein
the cap parking protrusions are arranged between the external threads (-).
Claim 8 depends on claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, Babcock discloses a neck (Title, package, Fig 1, neck shown on a package that is container 14) for a food package ([0022] “fruit juices” are from fruit which is food), the neck comprising
a main body having an upper part configured to be closed with a cap (Fig 1, a neck main body has a neck upper part that is shown capable of closing by a cap 12), a lower part configured to be attached to the food package (Fig 4, a lower part proximal shoulder 44 of the neck is shown capable of attaching to package 14, Fig 1), and a neck wall extending between the upper part and the lower part along a main axis of the neck (Fig 4, a neck wall between the upper part and lower part of the neck, vertically along a main axis extends (i.e. along elements 42, 44, 46 between 44 and the upper part)), the neck wall having a wall thickness along a direction transverse to the main axis (Figs 4-5 shows a thickness of the neck wall), and a tether band holding portion (Fig 4, 46 is a portion of the neck holding a band 26) configured to hold the cap to the neck via a tether band (Fig 1, 26 is a tether tamper band, wherein 46 holds cap 12 by engaging 26), wherein
an outside surface of the neck wall is provided with cap parking protrusions (see examiner annotated Babcock Figure 4, hereinafter “EAFB4”; EAFB4, protrusions, shown capable of parking the cap, Fig 1 when assembled), the cap parking protrusions having an extension in the direction transverse to the main axis which is less than 50% of the wall thickness (EAFB4, dotted line shows protrusions thickness (arrow to dotted line) is less than 50% of the neck wall thickness (between two arrows), from viewer perspective proportionally (not specifically) via dimensions of 42; wherein [0035] outer surface neck diameter is “1.370 inches”, and outer surface of 42 is “1.484 inches” meaning for example a radial thickness of 42 is 0.114 inches (which is in the hundredths of significant figures for millimeters, see depending range claims), thereby showing enough proportionality the thicknesses), and
the outside surface of the neck wall is provided with external threads (Fig 4, 40) for engaging the cap (Fig 1, cap 12 engages said thread via its thread shown in skirt 18), wherein
the cap parking protrusions are arranged between the external threads (-).
For illustration purposes, Figures 2, 4 and 8 of the examined disclosure show the cap parking protrusions between the neck external threads, which is different than the prior art Babcock and Krautkramer which do not teach the protrusions between neck threads.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight, since the function (i.e. holding the cap stably open) was achieved without the same particular structure (i.e. arranging the protrusions between the neck threads) of the examined invention. Also it is not obvious to combine any pertinent references (Conclusion).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 9181001 – cap parking protrusions 64a between threads but not capable of parking the cap when the cap is in secured open position or being less than 50% of the neck thickness (Fig 5B)
US 10611511 – parking protrusions 220 between thread but not threads (cover)
US 11718450 (US 20210229873) – cap sidewall lower edge is heel 22 shown and disclosed as “abuts” thread 6 in between portions of the thread 6 but nothing suggests 22 could contact added parking protrusions to hold secure the cap in open position (Fig 10, col 9 lines 32-33)
US 11535436 (US 20210300648) – cap sidewall lower edge is edge 309 shown and disclosed as “on” thread 204 in between portions of the thread 204 but nothing suggests 309 could contact added parking protrusions to hold secure the cap in open position (Fig 11 [0103])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 4 April 2026