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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 17, 19-21, 25-26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wisniewski et al. (US-20240417143-A1).
Wisniewski discloses:
1. A closure (40) for a flowable product comprising: a base (55) and a lid (100), the base and the lid being joint together by a hinge (104) such that the lid is movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein the base extends longitudinally from a first end to a second end (Fig. 6), wherein the base comprises a flowable product dispensing passage along the longitudinal length of the base extending from the first end to the second end of the base (Fig. 6), wherein the base comprises a sealing element (60) configured to be coupled within the dispensing passage of the base such that the dispensing passage is sealed and the flowable product cannot pass through the dispensing passage (par. 0085), wherein the base further comprises a pressing element (94) configured to be pressed and displaced between a first operational position and a second operational position such that when the pressing element is at the first operational position the pressing element does not contact with the sealing element and the flowable product cannot pass through the dispensing passage, and when the pressing element is at the second operational position, the pressing element contacts and breaks the sealing element and the flowable product can pass through the dispensing passage (par. 0089), wherein the pressing element comprises an annular outer collar, a central hub (Fig. 7) and a plurality of spokes extending from the annular outer collar to the central hub (par. 0092)..
16. The closure of claim 1, wherein the closure is a flip-top closure and the base is connectable to a dispensing opening of a container, specifically an edible oil container (Fig. 3).
17. The closure of claim 1, wherein the base further comprises a substantially cylindrical sidewall (par. 0088), an annular top platform (92) and a cylindrical dispensing spout (89) situated in the centre of the platform (Fig. 5).
19. The closure of claim 1, wherein a plurality of through-holes are defined between corresponding spokes and the through-holes, the spokes, the central hub and the annular outer collar are arranged to control the flux of flowable product when flowing through the dispensing passage such that the gurgling of the flowable product is at least partially reduced (par. 0092).
20. The closure of claim 1, wherein the pressing element is substantially circular-shaped and the pressing element comprises a cross-sectional profile defined including an first slope comprising a continuous increase of the height of the pressing element from an initial height to a maximum height during a first part of the diameter of the pressing element (Fig. 6), and a second slope comprising a continuous decrease of the height of the pressing element from the maximum height to a second height during a second part of the diameter of the pressing element (Fig. 6).
21. The closure of claim 20, wherein the pressing element comprises a substantially cylindrical side wall configured to be connected to an inner portion of the dispensing passage by a plurality of frangible bridges (par. 0092).
25. The closure of claim 1, wherein the pressing element comprises one or more cutting elements (97) situated at a lower surface of the pressing element, wherein when the pressing element is at the first operational position the cutting elements do not touch the sealing element (Fig. 6) and when the pressing element is at the second operational position the cutting elements puncture and break the sealing element (par. 0099).
26. The closure of claim 1, wherein the base comprises one or more arcuated slots and the lid comprises one or more spaced apart connectors, wherein the connectors are adapted to mate with the slots using a snap fit locking mechanism (par. 0091).
29. A kit for containing and dispensing a flowable product comprising: a container (44) comprising an interior space for housing the flowable product and a filling and dispensing spout, the closure of claim 1, wherein the base of the closure is configured to be attached to the filling and dispensing spout.
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski et al. (US-20240417143-A1) in view of Herald et al. (US-20060011573-A1).
Wisniewski fails to teach one or more tamper evident elements frangibly connected to the lid, wherein the base comprises one or more recesses into which the corresponding tamper evident element is engaged such that, when the tamper evident elements are separated with respect to the lid, the tamper-evident elements move into the corresponding recess.
Herald teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a closure with one or more tamper evident elements (28) frangibly connected to the lid, wherein the base comprises one or more recesses (32) into which the corresponding tamper evident element is engaged such that, when the tamper evident elements are separated with respect to the lid, the tamper-evident elements move into the corresponding recess (par. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure with tamper evident elements, as taught by Herald, in order to make the closure further tamper proof.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski et al. (US-20240417143-A1) and Herald et al. (US-20060011573-A1) in view of Elliot (US-6405885-B1).
The modified closure of Wisniewski fails to teach wherein the tamper-evident elements comprise marks, wherein the marks are adapted to be visible when the lid is in a closed position and the marks are not visible when the is displaced into the corresponding recess after the lid is opened for the first time.
Elliot teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a closure indicia on a tamper evident element (Figs. 2, 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure with indicia, as taught by Elliot, in order convey information to a user.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski et al. (US-20240417143-A1) in view of Shibata et al. (US-20100044337-A1).
Wisniewski fails to teach wherein the base, the lid and the sealing element are made of the same material, specifically the material is polyolefin.
Shibata teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture closure components out of polyolefin (par. 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the closure with polyolefin, in order to adjust costs 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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski et al. (US-20240417143-A1) in view of von Spreckelsen et al (US-20040200837-A1).
Wisniewski teaches wherein the sealing element is configured to break and retract without any material separation upon contact of the pressing element with the sealing element (Fig. 9), but fails to teach a stretched film that is thinner than 100 microns
Von Spreckelsen teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a sealing element as a stretched film thinner than 100 microns (par. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the sealing element as a stretched film, as taught by von Spreckelsen, in order to adjust costs, in order to ensure the element breaks and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the spokes are attached at the central hub) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). A component that extends to another component does not mean that it is integrally connected at both components
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights