DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are closely related, have a common utility, and there is no excess burden on the Examiner to search all groups. Examiner agrees the inventions can be searched together. The outstanding grounds of restriction are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the protrusion engages the internal wall to engage the internal wall” appears to be redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 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.
Regarding claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, it is unclear how a singular radially outward projection can include a plurality of threads. Further, it is unclear how the threads result in the rotation of the actuator. To the best degree the Examiner understands the claimed subject matter, the rotation of the actuator results in a corresponding rotation of the threads, which then drives the protrusion into the cavity of the stopper.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear how the protrusion has “a first length” when it comprises “at least one radially outward projection” in claim 1. More specifically, it is not clear if, in the instance of a plurality of radially outward projections, each of those projections comprises the first length.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,450,966 (Villavicencio).
Regarding claim 18, Villavicencio teaches an apparatus comprising:
a removal tool including (16):
a key (broadly 24 and 36) including:
an actuator including a handle (36), the handle extending a first direction (see upside-down V-shape of handle in Fig. 3, thus having two separate upward inclines); and
a protrusion (24) defining a plurality of threads (see lines of 24 in Fig. 1 consistent with threading per MPEP 608.02; see col. 3, lines 2-3 teaching the plug is threaded into a threaded passage), the protrusion coupled with the actuator (see Fig. 1), wherein the protrusion extends a second direction away from the handle, and wherein the first direction is non-parallel with the second direction (plug 24 extends vertically downwardly); and
a removable cap (16) defining an aperture (35) centrally located therein, wherein the removable cap is configured to operably couple with a neck of a bottle (see internal screw thread 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,450,966 (Villavicencio) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Villavicencio as applied above fails to teach an internal depth of the removable cap is at least equal to a neck height of the neck of the bottle configured to be operably coupled with the removable cap and a stopper height of a stopper of a press-in bottle adapter configured to be removed by the removal tool.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the removable cap to at least equal to a neck height of the neck of the bottle configured to be operably coupled with the removable cap and a stopper height of a stopper of a press-in bottle adapter configured to be removed by the removal tool, motivated by an obvious change in the size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A):
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Examiner asserts that while tube (26) is present in the container, the depth of the plug (24) can nonetheless be extended around the end of the tube, or the tube can be made of a flexible material, so as not to render it inoperable.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,450,966 (Villavicencio) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to claim 18, in view of US 869,700 (Fraser).
Regarding claim 20, Villavicencio fails to teach the limitations of the claim.
Fraser, analogous to plugs with handles, teaches an actuator including:
a first side extension (unlabeled; see annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled with the handle, the first side extension extending outwardly from the handle (unlabeled; see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a second side extension (unlabeled; see annotated Fig. 2 below) coupled with the handle distal the first side extension, the second side extension extending outwardly from the handle, wherein the first side extension and the second side extension are engaged by at least one of a user and an electric motor to apply a torque to the key (capable of being engaged by the finger of a user; see pg. 1, col. 2, line 81).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Villavicencio, providing a handle and first and second extensions as taught by Fraser, motivated by the benefit of inserting a finger to remove the plug, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest reference the Examiner was able to locate was US 5,806,723 (DuBose), which at least fails to teach a stopper and a radially outward projection which engages the internal wall of the stopper.
No motivation could be found to modify the reference in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
