DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 4, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on November 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 (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 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A).
Regarding claim 1, Ottenstein teaches a cap 1, 2 for a container comprising a cup-shaped body 1, 2 having a skirt 2 (figure 2) which extends around an axis and a transversal wall 1 (figure 2) positioned transversally to the axis, said cup-shaped body 1, 2 on the inside defining a cavity (figure 2) interposed between an inner surface of the skirt 2 and an inner surface of the transversal wall 1, a gasket 3-6 housed in the cavity (figure 3) and engaged with at least the inner surface of the transversal wall (figure 3), said gasket 3-6 having a peripheral portion configured to couple in a fluid tight way to a mouth of the container (col. 2 lines 41-50), wherein the gasket 3-6 is made with a natural fibre-based material (“cellulose material”) comprising at least 30% cellulose by weight (layers 3, 4 are 100% cellulose). Wherein the gasket has a disk-shaped body (gasket is disk-shaped as shown in figures 1-3), said disk-shaped body (center portion) and peripheral portion (peripheral portion considered to be the annular periphery of 3-6) are made in a single body (center portion and annular portion are a single body) and are respectively concentric relative to the axis
Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the modulus of compression of between 0.5 and 50 Mpa. Shimamura et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cellulose material with a modulus of compression of between 0.5 and 50 Mpa (see between 1.0 and 8.5 Mpa disclosed). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Ottenstein with the gasket having a modulus of compression of between 0.5 and 50 Mpa, as taught by Shimamura et al., in order to give the liner the desired strength and flexibility, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, said natural fibre-based material (“cellulose material”) comprises at least 70% cellulose by weight (layers 3 and 4 are 100% cellulose material).
Regarding claim 4, an adhesive layer 7 interposed between a contact surface of the gasket 3-6 on the opposite side to the mouth of the container and the inner surface of the transversal wall 1 (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, said gasket 3-6 also comprises at least one barrier layer 5, positioned at said peripheral portion and directed towards the mouth of the container (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, the gasket 3-6 has a disk-shaped body (figure 1), said peripheral portion (11) being defined by a circular and perimetric zone of the disk-shaped body (figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, said peripheral portion comprises an annular surface for contact with an edge of the mouth of the container (annular opening of bottle contacts annular surface of gasket).
Regarding claim 16, the cup-shaped body 1, 2 is made of metal material (figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, the skirt 2 has an undulating profile defining an annular portion in a ring configured to be plastically deformed on the mouth of the container (figure 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stieler et al. (WO 01/68466A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified closure of Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the hardness of between 50 and 90 SHORE A. Stieler et al. teaches that it is known to provide a gasket with a hardness of between 50 and 90 SHORE A (see “preferably in a range from Shore A 65 to 90”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the hardness of between 50 and 90 SHORE A, as taught by Stieler et al., in order to give the liner the desired strength and rigidity, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mumford et al. (U.S. 3,152,711).
Regarding claim 6, the modified closure of Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the annular shape of the gasket. Mumford et al. teaches that it is known to provide a gasket with an annular shape (see element 13; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the gasket having an annular shape, as taught by Mumford et al., in order to save on material costs.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallach (U.S. 2,411,012).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the modified closure of Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the hydrophobic component. Wallach teaches that it is known to provide a gasket with a hydrophobic component (see col. 3 lines 4-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the gasket having a hydrophobic component, as taught by Wallach, in order to protect the gasket from moisture damage.
Regarding claim 9, said peripheral portion of the gasket 3-6 is constrained by mechanical interlocking to the inner surface of the skirt 2 (see periphery of 4 which engages inwardly directed portion of 2 in figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, the hydrophobic component of the closure as modified by Wallach above, is integrated inside the natural fibre-based material and/or applied as a layer, and wherein the water-soluble component is applied in a layer to be protected by said hydrophobic component (col. 3 lines 4-47 of Wallach).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Antrag Auf Nichtnennung (DE 102012111374B3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the modified closure of Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the cup-shaped body 1, 2 being made with a natural fibre-based material. Antrag Auf Nichtnennung teaches that it is known to provide a cup-shaped body made with a natural fibre-based material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the cup-shaped body being made with a natural fibre-based material, as taught by Antrag Auf Nichtnennung, in order to use a lightweight material that is recyclable, 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.
Further regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the natural fibre-based material comprising at least 30% cellulose, in order to use a lightweight material that is recyclable, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the cup-shaped body being made with a said natural fibre-based material having an average density greater than or equal to 0.8 g/cms3, in order to give the closure the desired rigidity, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the cup-shaped body being made with 10% synthetic polymers and/or up to 10% additives, in order to give the closure the desired rigidity, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottenstein (U.S. 2,404,741) in view of Shimamura et al. (TW 20220909A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taliaferro (U.S. 1,806,425). Regarding claim 18, the modified closure of Ottenstein discloses the claimed invention except for the threads. Taliaferro teaches that it is known to provide a closure with threads (see 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 provide the modified closure of Ottenstein with the closure having threads, as taught by Taliaferro, in order to provide a more connection between the closure and the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ottenstein teaches away from the present invention because Ottenstein discloses the stacking of the gasket layers to achieve the “proper degree of elasticity” (col. 2 line 9 of Ottenstein). Applicant argues that the limitation in amended claim 1 which recites that the disk-shaped body and peripheral portion are made in a single body, is not met by Ottenstein. It is the examiner’s position that the gasket of Ottenstein meets the limitation that the disk-shaped body and peripheral portion are made in a single body because the entire gasket is considered a single body, to the degree set forth in the claim, as it is a single gasket. The gasket of Ottenstein is a single body as the layers are permanent attached to form the gasket. 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).
Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Shimamura is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the spacer of Shimamura is reasonably pertinent because it relates to a desired modulus of elasticity for a planar element designed to space two elements, like the gasket of Ottenstein which also provides spacing between two elements (the cap and container). The structure of Shimamura is not used to modify the gasket of Ottenstein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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. Avilés 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights