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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kellner (US20250017819A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kellner teaches a closure system for a medication container, an interior of which is accessible via a container opening configured in the form of a bottle mouth, comprising (fig.1 shows the closure assembly 10 for a medication container and fig.1 shows the container 1 with an interior that is accessible via the opening at the collar 6)
a bump cap with an annular lid having a central opening and on the outer circumference of which a number of latching elements are arranged which can be brought into engagement with an outer bead mounted circumferentially on the container opening (see annotated fig.4a and 4b of Kellner below for the bump cap with annular lid with a central opening and number of latching elements arranged which are brought into engagement with the outer bead mounted on the container opening as seen in fig.7c; it is noted that “number of latching elements” has not been assigned how many elements), and
a one-piece closure plug including a closure body that completely fills the central opening of the annular lid and can be brought into engagement therewith in a latching manner, wherein the closure body is designed configured as a duckbill valve (see annotated fig.4a and 4b for the one-piece closure and fig.7c shows the closure body completely fills the central opening of the bump cap and capable of being bought into engagement in a latching manner and body is can be configured as a duckbill valve ).
Annotated fig.4a and 4b of Kellner
PNG
media_image1.png
761
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches a radial sealing element integrally formed radially circumferentially on the closure body of the closure plug, the radial sealing element having a cross- section configured to a clear width of the container opening and is slightly larger than the clear width of the container opening with regard to the deformability of the material of the closure plug (see annotated fig.4a and 4b for a radial sealing element integrally formed radially circumferentially on the closure body of the closure plug, the radial sealing element having a cross- section capable of clearing the width of the container opening and is slightly larger than the clear width of the container opening with regard to the deformability of the material of the closure plug).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches a retaining ring which can be slid on to the bump cap and which, in a position completely slid on to the bump cap, can be latchably fixed to the bump cap by a plurality of snap ribs (see annotated fig.4a and 4b above for the retaining ring which can be slid on the bump cap and latchably fixed to the bump cap by plurality of ribs).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches wherein each snap rib is guided in a corresponding guide slot during a movement of an inner circumferential surface of the retaining ring relative to an outer circumferential surface, of the bump cap (see annotated fig.4a and 4b above for the guide slot corresponding to snap rib).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches a retaining collar formed on the bump cap surrounding the central opening for attachment of an associated closure cap (see annotated fig.4a and 4b above for the retaining collar on the bump cap surrounding the central opening for the closure cap).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches wherein the closure cap includes a retaining ring having a pierceable sealing membrane that rests on the closure body in an assembled state when the closure system is assembled on the medication container (see annotated fig.4a and 4b for retaining ring with pierceable sealing membrane 72 that rests on the closure body when assembled).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches a medicament container having an interior of which is accessible via a container opening configured in the form of a bottle mouth, which is provided with the closure system (see annotated fig.4a and 4b above for a medicament container having an interior which is accessible via container opening configured in a form of a bottle mouth which is provided with the closure system 10).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabien (US12486083B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fabien teaches a closure system for a medication container, an interior of which is accessible via a container opening configured in the form of a bottle mouth, comprising (fig.3 shows the closure assembly for a medication container and fig.1 shows the container 1 with an interior is accessible via the opening at the collar 2)
a bump cap with an annular lid having a central opening and on the outer circumference of which a number of latching elements are arranged which can be brought into engagement with an outer bead mounted circumferentially on the container opening (see annotated fig.3 of Fabien below for the bump cap with annular lid with a central opening and number of latching elements arranged which are brought into engagement with the outer bead mounted on the container opening as seen in fig.1; it is noted that “number of latching elements” has not been assigned how many elements), and
a one-piece closure plug including a closure body that completely fills the central opening of the annular lid and can be brought into engagement therewith in a latching manner, wherein the closure body is designed configured as a duckbill valve (see annotated fig.3 for the one-piece closure and fig.1 shows the closure body completely fills the central opening of the bump cap and capable of being bought into engagement in a latching manner and body is can be configured as a duckbill valve ).
Annotated fig.3 of Fabien
PNG
media_image2.png
632
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Aneas (US20100224632A1).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Kellner further teaches a filling needle (“This choice of material also ensures that the sealing element 24 can be pierced using a suitable instrument, such as a hollow needle, if necessary, i.e. if active ingredient is to be removed from the medication container 1.”-0041, Kellner). Kellner does not teach wherein a filling device for medicament container with an injector unto connected to a storage container for a substance to be filled.
Aneas does teach wherein a filling device for medicament container with an injector unto connected to a storage container for a substance to be filled (fig.1-7 show the process of a filling device 400 for the medication container with an injector unit which includes a needle and a storage container for the substance P that is getting taking out of medication container). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medicament container disclosed by Kellner by adding the teaching of filling device as disclosed by Aneas in order to safely get the substance stored in the medicament container out and use it in a sterile way during medical procedures and it is known in the art to use syringes to get substances out of the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant did not amend any claims so it did not change the scope of the claim hence the same rejection. Drawing objection is withdrawn due to the updated drawing and specification provided. Applicant first argument under 102 from page 7-10 which are regarding the same limitation is that neither prior art “Kellner or Fabien disclose, expressly or inherently, the claimed closure body configured as a duckbill valve”. This is not persuasive as the prior art does not have to specifically disclose that limitation as applicant has not positively claimed the limitation. “Configured to” limitation is a capable of limitation and as long as prior art is capable of performing such function it reads on the claim. Regarding the intended use of the claimed invention “configured to.....”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Applicant has not even stated why a specific valve would be beneficial. Applicant goes on to stated that their specifications “explains that transfer through the closure plug occurs by displacing valve flanks without a membrane or the like having to be pierce” however NONE of that is in the claims applicant is trying to get allowed. Claims are rejected as presented and they are read in light of the specification not specifications in light of the claim. IF applicant is going to argue the limitations on why their invention is different at least have the limitations positively claimed or at least go into detailed on how they function even if its capable to limitation that way it gives the claims little more weight. Applicant also stated flanks in the arguments however if applicant’s going based on shape or design of the closure body then both prior art disclose a duckbill valve. No structure for the duckbill valve has been disclosed in claim 1 and on top that being a “configured to” as a duckbill valve makes it even broader. In response to applicant's argument that “configured as duckbill valve”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Even under 103 applicant keeps stating that duckbill limitation is not disclose and that motivation is provided for the combination, however 103 is not even used to teach the duckbill valve because it has not even been positively claimed. The 103 is literally there to only teach the filling needle and the motivation to combine is right above. Applicant is recommended to at least claim the duckbill valve.
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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights