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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 , 19 & 20 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 term “near” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation, wherein the end of the rupture line at the bottom end is in or near the centre plane. It is unclear what distance the term “near” is referring in this limitation. For purposes of examination, the term near will be interpreted anywhere on the aerosol cap.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1 - 10 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al (JP 3709015) in view of Stenghel (EP 3766801).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
an aerosol cap (Fig. 8, 5) for placement on an aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) having a valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of an operable valve at the top of the container (Fig. 9, 1), the aerosol cap being made of a plastic material ([0005]) by injection moulding (Even 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process” (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, though not explicitly disclosed, the plastic material is capable of being formed into the aerosol cap by injection moulding), the aerosol cap (Fig. 9, 5) comprising;
a cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 below) having a circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) and having an open bottom (Fig. 9 depicts the cap body having an open bottom) to be placed on and connected with the aerosol container (Fig. 8, 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
418
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below) including a dispending opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17) and a tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below), which tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below) is adapted to be coupled with the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of the aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) and defines a flow channel (see annotated Fig. 9 below), between the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) and the dispensing opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17), the actuator being adapted to operate the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
369
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a push button (Fig. 9, 4) associated with the actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 above), wherein a hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) integrally connects the push button (Fig. 9, 4) with the cap body (Fig. 8, 5), said hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) defining a hinge axis, wherein the hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) has a centre plane extending perpendicularly through the centre of the hinge axis, and wherein the circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) of the cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 above) has one single rupture line (Fig. 8, 14 depicts one single rupture line as claimed. The transitional language ‘comprises’ does not exclude the addition of any other rupture lines), wherein said rupture line which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap body (Fig. 8, 14 extends from the top end of the cap body to the bottom end of the cap body), wherein said rupture line is at least partially offset from the centre plane (Fig. 8, 14 is offset from the centre plane).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein the aerosol cap has an injection gate in the centre. However, Stenghel teaches an injection gate (see annotated Fig. 2 below) on the centre plane. The advantage of having an injection gate on the centre plane of the aerosol cap is to have even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Stenghel to provide an aerosol cap with an injection gate on the centre plane to facilitate even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino does not disclose;
wherein the injection gate is located in the push button.
However, Stenghel teaches wherein the injection gate (see annotated Fig. 2) is located on the push button (Fig. 2, 2). The advantage of having an injection gate on the push button is to have even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Stenghel to provide an aerosol cap with an injection gate on the push button to facilitate even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) extends from a location adjacent the hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) towards the edge of the circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) at the bottom end.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 3, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the end of the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) at the bottom end is in or near the centre plane (the term near as defined above is interpreted as any location on the aerosol cap, therefore the bottom of the rupture line is interpreted to be near the centre plane)
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) has a curved shape (the rupture line runs along a portion of the cap body which features a dome-shaped wall; therefore, the rupture line is curved).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) has a rupture initiator notch (see annotated Fig. 8 below) at the top end.
PNG
media_image4.png
418
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) is adapted to have a smaller tearing resistance at the top end than at the bottom end (the initiator notch at the top of the rupture line causes the rupture line to have a smaller tearing resistance at the top end than the bottom end).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line comprises perforations ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Hoshino is silent regarding;
wherein the perforations have an oval shape with a long axis of the oval shape aligned with the rupture line.
Instead, Hoshino indicates that the perforations are preferably rectangle shaped, with the long axis of the rectangle shape aligned with the rupture line. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the perforations of Hoshino to be ovals because Applicant has not disclosed that oval shaped perforations provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Hoshino’s aerosol cap, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the perforation shape disclosed by Hoshino or the claimed oval shaped perforations because both types of perforations would perform the same function of providing a rupture line that is easy to tear. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hoshino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hoshino. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
wherein the rupture line (Fig. 8, 14) is only partially perforated.
Regarding claim 21, Hoshino discloses;
an aerosol cap (Fig. 8, 5) for placement on an aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) having a valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of an operable valve at the top of the container (Fig. 9, 1), the aerosol cap being made of a plastic material ([0005]) by injection moulding (Even 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process” (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, though not explicitly disclosed, the plastic material is capable of being formed into the aerosol cap by injection moulding), the aerosol cap (Fig. 9, 5) comprising;
a cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 below) having a circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) and having an open bottom (Fig. 9 depicts the cap body having an open bottom) to be placed on and connected with the aerosol container (Fig. 8, 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
418
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below) including a dispending opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17) and a tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below), which tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below) is adapted to be coupled with the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of the aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) and defines a flow channel (see annotated Fig. 9 below), between the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) and the dispensing opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17), the actuator being adapted to operate the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
369
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a push button (Fig. 9, 4) associated with the actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 above), wherein a hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) integrally connects the push button (Fig. 9, 4) with the cap body (Fig. 8, 5), said hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) defining a hinge axis, wherein the hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) has a centre plane extending perpendicularly through the centre of the hinge axis, and wherein the circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) of the cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 above) has one single rupture line (Fig. 8, 14 depicts one single rupture line as claimed. The transitional language ‘comprises’ does not exclude the addition of any other rupture lines), wherein said rupture line which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap body (Fig. 8, 14 extends from the top end of the cap body to the bottom end of the cap body), wherein said rupture line is at least partially offset from the centre plane (Fig. 8, 14 is offset from the centre plane).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein the aerosol cap has an injection gate in the centre. However, Stenghel teaches an injection gate (see annotated Fig. 2 below) on the centre plane. The advantage of having an injection gate on the centre plane of the aerosol cap is to have even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Stenghel to provide an aerosol cap with an injection gate on the centre plane to facilitate even distribution of moulding material during the injection moulding process.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino discloses;
an assembly of an aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) and an aerosol cap (Fig. 8, 5).
Claims 11 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al (JP 3709015) in view of Stenghel (EP 3766801) and in further view of Abe et al (JP 2003192060; using attached WIPO machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein the rupture line comprises a groove.
However, Abe teaches, wherein the rupture line (Fig. 6, 21a) comprises a groove ([0020]). The advantage of having a rupture line with a groove is to easily cut the break line ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide an aerosol cap with rupture line that has a groove so that the rupture line is easier to cut.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 11, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein the groove is formed on the outer side of the circumferential wall.
Abe teaches, wherein the rupture line (Fig. 6, 21a) comprises a groove ([0020]). However, Abe is silent regarding, wherein the groove is formed on the outer side of the circumferential wall. Since applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed side location of the groove, stating in the specification that the groove can be located on the outer or inner side of the circumferential wall, it is applicant’s design consideration/choice as to the specific side the of the wall the groove is located. As there are only two sides to choose from, so long as the groove is positioned in the manner described by the prior art in relation to the rupture lines, whether it is located on the inner or outer side fails to patentably distinguish. The advantage of the groove is formed on the outer side of the circumferential wall is to easily cut the break line ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide a groove formed on the outer side of the circumferential wall so that the rupture line is easier to cut.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations in claim 11, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein the groove is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall.
Abe teaches, wherein the rupture line (Fig. 6, 21a) comprises a groove ([0020]). However, Abe is silent regarding, wherein the groove is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall. Since applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed side location of the groove, stating in the specification that the groove can be located on the outer or inner side of the circumferential wall, it is applicant’s design consideration/choice as to the specific side the of the wall the groove is located. As there are only two sides to choose from, so long as the groove is positioned in the manner described by the prior art in relation to the rupture lines, whether it is located on the inner or outer side fails to patentably distinguish. The advantage of the groove is formed on the outer side of the circumferential wall is to easily cut the break line ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide a groove formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall so that the rupture line is easier to cut.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein directly next to the groove an axial rib is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall.
However, Abe teaches, wherein directly next to the groove an axial rib (Fig. 1, 10) is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall (Fig. 1, B1). The advantage of having an axial rib directly next to the groove on the inner side of the circumferential wall is to prevent breakage if the aerosol cap is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide an axial rib directly next to the groove on the inner side of the circumferential wall to prevent unintended breakage of the aerosol cap.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein on either side of the rupture line an axial rib extends in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall.
However, Abe teaches, wherein on either side of the rupture line (Fig. 6, 21b) an axial rib (Fig. 1, 6 & 10) extends in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall (Fig. 1, B1). The advantage of having an axial rib on either side of the rupture line, extending in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall, is to prevent breakage if the aerosol cap is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide an axial rib on either side of the rupture line, extending in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall, to prevent unintended breakage of the aerosol cap.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose;
wherein axial ribs are formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall, distributed over the circumference, wherein said ribs extend in axial direction of the cap body, wherein the bottom end of the ribs is spaced apart from the bottom end of the circumferential wall.
However, Abe teaches wherein axial ribs (Fig. 1, 6 & 10) are formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall (Fig. 1, B1), distributed over the circumference, wherein said ribs extend in axial direction of the cap body, wherein the bottom end of the ribs is spaced apart from the bottom end of the circumferential wall. The advantage of having axial ribs formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall, distributed over the circumference, wherein said ribs extend in axial direction of the cap body and wherein the bottom end of the ribs is spaced apart from the bottom end of the circumferential wall, is to prevent breakage if the aerosol cap is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide axial ribs formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall, distributed over the circumference, wherein said ribs extend in axial direction of the cap body and wherein the bottom end of the ribs is spaced apart from the bottom end of the circumferential wall, to prevent unintended breakage of the aerosol cap.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al (JP 3709015) in view of Abe et al (JP 2003192060).
Regarding claim 19, Hoshino discloses;
an aerosol cap (Fig. 8, 5) for placement on an aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) having a valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of an operable valve at the top of the container (Fig. 9, 1), the aerosol cap being made of a plastic material ([0005]), in particular PP or PE, by injection moulding (Even 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process” (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, though not explicitly disclosed, the plastic material is capable of being formed into the aerosol cap by injection moulding), the aerosol cap (Fig. 9, 5) comprising;
a cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 below) having a circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) and having an open bottom (Fig. 9 depicts the cap body having an open bottom) to be placed on and connected with the aerosol container (Fig. 8, 1),
an actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below) including a dispending opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17) and a tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below), which tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below) is adapted to be coupled with the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of the aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) and defines a flow channel (see annotated Fig. 9 below), between the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) and the dispensing opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17), the actuator being adapted to operate the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
369
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a push button (Fig. 9, 4) associated with the actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 above), wherein a hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) integrally connects the push button (Fig. 9, 4) with the cap body (Fig. 8, 5), said hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) defining a hinge axis, wherein the circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) of the cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 below) has one single rupture line (Fig. 8, 14 depicts one single rupture line as claimed. The transitional language ‘comprises’ does not exclude the addition of any other rupture lines), wherein said rupture line which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap body (Fig. 8, 14 extends from the top end of the cap body to the bottom end of the cap body).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein on either side of the rupture line an axial rib extends in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall. However, Abe teaches, wherein on either side of the rupture line (Fig. 6, 21b) an axial rib (Fig. 1, 6 & 10) extends in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall (Fig. 1, B1). The advantage of having an axial rib on either side of the rupture line, extending in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall, is to prevent breakage if the aerosol cap is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide an axial rib on either side of the rupture line, extending in a direction from the top end to the bottom end along the inner side of the circumferential wall, to prevent unintended breakage of the aerosol cap.
Regarding claim 20, Hoshino discloses;
an aerosol cap (Fig. 8, 5) for placement on an aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) having a valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of an operable valve at the top of the container (Fig. 9, 1), the aerosol cap being made of a plastic material ([0005]), in particular PP or PE, by injection moulding (Even 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process” (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985) (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, though not explicitly disclosed, the plastic material is capable of being formed into the aerosol cap by injection moulding), the aerosol cap (Fig. 9, 5) comprising;
a cap body (see annotated Fig. 8 below) having a circumferential wall (Fig. 8, 7) and having an open bottom (Fig. 9 depicts the cap body having an open bottom) to be placed on and connected with the aerosol container (Fig. 8, 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
418
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below) including a dispending opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17) and a tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below), which tubular member (see annotated Fig. 9 below) is adapted to be coupled with the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) of the aerosol container (Fig. 9, 1) and defines a flow channel (see annotated Fig. 9 below), between the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3) and the dispensing opening or nozzle (Fig. 9, 17), the actuator being adapted to operate the valve stem (Fig. 9, 3),
a push button (Fig. 9, 4) associated with the actuator (see annotated Fig. 9 below), wherein a hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) integrally connects the push button (Fig. 9, 4) with the cap body (Fig. 8, 5), said hinge portion (Fig. 9, 16) defining a hinge axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein the circumferential wall of the cap body has a groove formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall defining a rupture line which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap body, and wherein directly next to the groove an axial rib is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall. Abe teaches wherein the circumferential wall (Fig. 1, B1) of the cap body (Fig. 1, B) has a groove ([0020]) formed on the circumferential wall defining a rupture line (Fig. 1, B1) which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap body, and wherein directly next to the groove an axial rib (Fig.1, 10; [0020]) is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall. However, Abe is silent regarding, wherein the groove is formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall. Since applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed side location of the groove, stating in the specification that the groove can be located on the outer or inner side of the circumferential wall, it is applicant’s design consideration/choice as to the specific side the of the wall the groove is located. As there are only two sides to choose from, so long as the groove is positioned in the manner described by the prior art in relation to the rupture lines, whether it is located on the inner or outer side fails to patentably distinguish. The advantage of having a groove formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall defining a rupture line which extends from a top end of the cap body towards a bottom end of the cap is to make it easier to cut the rupture line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide an aerosol cap with rupture line that has a groove formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall so that the rupture line is easier to cut. The advantage of having an axial rib formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall, directly next to the groove, is to prevent breakage if the aerosol cap is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the invention of Hoshino to incorporate the teachings of Abe to provide a groove on the inner side of the circumferential wall and an axial rib formed on the inner side of the circumferential wall, directly next to the groove, to make the groove easier to cut and to prevent unintended breakage of the aerosol cap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYANT K HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-8630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Li (CN 106697607) is directed to the state of the art of aerosol caps with an injection gate.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/B.K.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights