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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species II (Fig, 1, 5, and 6) in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim(s) 12 is a product-by-process claim(s). Regarding product-by-process claims, MPEP § 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." For purposes of further prosecution all claims will be interpreted as stated above.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanan (US 2019/0375558).
Regarding Claim 1
Hanan teaches a container (below – Fig. 1, 3, and 4) comprising: a bottle (100) including a base (104), a sidewall (108[Wingdings font/0xE0]128), a neck (136), and a finish (140) defining an opening; and a closure (164) including an end wall (shown at 164), a skirt (shown at 176) extending away from the end wall, a rim (166), threads (176) protruding from the skirt and configured to engage with the finish, and a tamper evidence feature (204) connecting the skirt to the rim; wherein a rigid bond affixes the rim to the bottle (Paragraphs [0060]-[0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
585
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Hanan teaches the closure and the bottle are both primarily formed from a same material (PET) (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5
Hanan teaches the tamper evidence feature (204) comprises a breakable connection that is configured to break in response to application of a removal force to the closure; wherein the breakable connection comprises at least one bridge connecting between the skirt and the rim (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 7
Hanan teaches the finish comprises a multi-functional ledge (156) protruding in a radial direction, and wherein the rigid bond affixes the rim (166) to the multi-functional ledge (Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 9
Hanan teaches a container comprising: a bottle (100) including a base (104), a sidewall (108[Wingdings font/0xE0]128), a neck (136), and a finish (140), the finish including a multi-functional ledge (156) protruding in a radial direction, the finish further defining an opening; and a closure (164) including an end wall (shown at 164), a skirt (shown at 176) extending away from the end wall, a rim (166) affixed to the multi-functional ledge by a rigid bond, and threads (176) protruding from the skirt and configured to engage with the finish; wherein the bottle and the closure are both primarily formed from a same material (Paragraphs [0003] and [0060]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 10
Hanan teaches the same material is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12
Hanan teaches the rigid bond is formed by a welding process (Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 13
Hanan teaches the closure further includes a tamper evidence feature (204) that comprises at least one bridge connecting the skirt to the rim.
Regarding Claim 17
Hanan teaches a container comprising: a bottle (100) including a base (104), a sidewall(108[Wingdings font/0xE0]128), a neck (136), and a finish (140) defining an opening; and a closure (164) including an end wall(shown at 164), a skirt (shown at 176) extending away from the end wall, a rim (166) rigidly attached to the finish, threads (176) protruding from the skirt and configured to engage with the finish, and a tamper evidence feature (204) connecting the skirt to the rim; wherein the bottle and the closure are both primarily formed from a same material (Paragraphs [0003] and [0060]-[0066]).
Regarding Claim 18
Hanan teaches the same material is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 19
Hanan teaches the finish comprises a multi-functional ledge (156) protruding radially outward; and wherein the rim is rigidly attached to the finish via a rigid bond connecting the rim to the multi-functional ledge (Paragraph [0066]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanan as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 6
Hanan teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as shown above. Hanan does not teach the breakable connection comprises no more than three bridges connecting the skirt and the rim.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have no more than three bridges connecting the skirt and the rim. Hanan teaches that it is desirable to ensure that the rim is able to be broken away from the skirt in order to demonstrate that the container has been opened (Paragraph [0007]), so it would appear obvious that the container would need to have a number of bridges that holds the rim to the skirt before the container is opened and yet it is not so many that the rim does not detach from the skirt when the container is opened. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Applicant has not disclosed that having no more than three bridges connecting the skirt and the rim provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of no more than three bridges connecting the skirt and the rim does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanan as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, with evidence by Berglund (US 4573601).
Regarding Claims 14-16
Hanan teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as shown above. Hanan does not teach the rim comprises a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction; wherein the rigid bond is a first rigid bond affixing the first rim segment to the multi-functional ledge, and wherein the second rim segment is affixed to the multi-functional ledge by a second rigid bond; and the at least one bridge comprises a first bridge and a second bridge, and wherein the first bridge connects the skirt to the first rim segment, and wherein the second bridge connects the skirt to the second rim segment.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the rim comprise a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction. Hanan teaches that it is desirable to have a container where the rim remains attached to the bottle in order to show a user that the bottle has been removed. It would appear obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that if the rim were to comprise two distinct rim segments, that the odds that the container shows the closure has been removed would increase due to the higher number of potential rim portions that are intended to remain connected to the bottle when the closure is removed (i.e. if one rim segment detaches from the bottle, there is still a chance that the other rim segment remains attached to the bottle, thus indicating that the closure has been removed). Further, closures including an end wall, a skirt extending away from the end wall, a rim, a tamper evidence feature that comprises at least one bridge connecting the skirt to the rim, and the rim comprises a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction is known in the art [see Berglund (US 4573601)].
Applicant has not disclosed that the rim comprising a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the rim comprising a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.01.
Further, as Hanan teaches a rigid bond connecting the rim to the multi-functional ledge, and at least one bridge connecting the skirt to the rim (shown above), it would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the rim of Hanan were to comprise a first rim second rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction, that the rigid bond would then include a first rigid bond affixing the first rim segment to the multi-functional ledge, and the second rim segment would be affixed to the multi-functional ledge by a second rigid bond; and the at least one bridge would then include a first bridge and a second bridge, with the first bridge connecting the skirt to the first rim segment, and the second bridge would connect the skirt to the second rim segment.
Regarding Claim 20
Hanan teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as shown above. Hanan does not teach the rim comprises a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the rim comprise a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction. Hanan teaches that it is desirable to have a container where the rim remains attached to the bottle in order to show a user that the bottle has been removed. It would appear obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that if the rim were to comprise two distinct rim segments, that the odds that the container shows the closure has been removed would increase due to the higher number of potential rim portions that are intended to remain connected to the bottle when the closure is removed (i.e. if one rim segment detaches from the bottle, there is still a chance that the other rim segment remains attached to the bottle, thus indicating that the closure has been removed). Further, closures including an end wall, a skirt extending away from the end wall, a rim, a tamper evidence feature that comprises at least one bridge connecting the skirt to the rim, and the rim comprises a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction is known in the art [see Berglund (US 4573601)].
Applicant has not disclosed that the rim comprising a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the rim comprising a first rim segment and a second rim segment spaced apart from the first rim segment in a circumferential direction does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights