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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 2-4, 8, 16, and 19 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.
Claims 2-4 recites upper limitations for the thickness of the sheet metal, whereas claim 1, on which these claims depend recites both upper and lower bounds for the thickness of the sheet metal. Claims 2-4 must include a lower bound, and this lower bound must be consistent with the lower bound recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites an upper bound that is greater than the upper bound recited in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 16 recite “PE-LD or PP-CoPo” and “(and C2/C3 CoPos)” in lines 3 and 2-3, respectively. There is no guidance as to the meaning of these expressions, nor if C2/C3 CoPos is a sub-species or a broadening of the polybutene limitation. Further, no guidance appears to be provided in the specification of the current invention.
Claim 19 recites “tinplate and/or steel, or aluminum.” The multiplicative conjunctions result in a confusing limitation regarding the material of construction for the sheet metal.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US Patent 5,955,163, published 21 Sep. 1999, hereinafter White).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, and 15-18, White teaches a gasket composition for twist-off crown caps to be used on carbonated beverages (Abstract). White teaches the metal in his cap has a thickness of less than 0.25 mm (claim 4). White teaches his gasket comprises 1-50 wt.% of SEBS or SEPS (col. 4, lines 25-28 and lines 63-64), and the ratio of copolymer to oil is 1:0.5 to 1:5 (col. 5, lines 2-5). White teaches his gasket comprises 15 to 90 wt.% low-density polyethylene (LDPE) or ethylene-propylene copolymers (C2/C3 CoPos) (col. 5, lines 6-11) and 0.1 to 5 wt.% filler (col. 5, lines 25-31). White teaches the use of a SEBS with a styrene content of 29 wt.% (col.6, lines 41-42).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of components, metal sheet thickness, and oil-to-SEBS ratio from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by White because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
White does not disclose the Shore A hardness nor the compression set of his gasket composition. However, given that the gasket composition of White has the same amounts of SEBS, LDPE, oil, and filler, within the overlapping ranges, the gasket composition of White would inherently have the same Shore A hardness and compression set as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed ranges for Shore A hardness and compression set.
In light of the overlap between the claimed crown cork and that disclosed by White, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a crown cork that is both disclosed by White and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US Patent 5,955,163, published 21 Sep. 1999, hereinafter White) in view of Henning and Melson (US Patent 6,006,933, published 28 Dec. 1999, hereinafter Henning) and further in view of Toyosawa et al. (US Patent 6,663,975 B1, published 16 Dec. 2003, hereinafter Toyosawa) and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US Patent 6,106,952, published 22 Aug. 2000, hereinafter Yamashita).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 19, White teaches the elements of claim 1, and White teaches a metal pry-off and a metal twist-off crown (col. 2, lines 51-55).
White does not specify the metal in his crown caps.
Henning teaches a twist-off closure made from tin-coated steel sheet (Abstract).
Given that White and Henning are drawn to metallic crowns for beverage containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tin-plated steel (tinplate) crown as taught by Henning as the metal crown for the gasket composition taught by White. Since White and Henning are both drawn to metallic crowns for beverage containers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the tin-plated steel (tinplate) crown as taught by Henning as the metal crown for the gasket composition taught by White. Further, Henning teaches his crown is configured such that a corrosion-resistant layer of tin substantially covers the edges of the edges of the tabs around the circumference of the crown (Abstract). Additionally, Toyosawa teaches the selection of the metal in a cover coated with a styrenic block copolymer is properly and optionally selected for use according to the purpose of use, and choosing from among plated steel, stainless steel, and aluminum (col. 5, lines 58-63), and Yamashita teaches laminates of metal and styrene-diene copolymers in which the metal layer is stainless steel, aluminum, or tin-plated galvanized steel (col. 1, lines 50-63).
White in view of Henning and further in view of Toyosawa and further in view of Yamashita does not disclose the yield strength of the metal layer in the crown. However, given that the metal of White in view of Henning and further in view of Toyosawa and further in view of Yamashita is the same metal and of the same thickness, within the overlapping range, the sheet metal of White in view of Henning and further in view of Toyosawa and further in view of Yamashita would inherently have the same yield strength as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed ranges for yield strength.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US Patent 5,955,163, published 21 Sep. 1999, hereinafter White) and evidence provided by Kuraray (“Meeting consumers’ needs with Kuraray’s elastomers: Septon and Hybrar,” published May 2025, hereinafter Kuraray).
Regarding claim 11, White teaches the elements of claim 1.
White does not disclose the solution viscosity of his SEBS component.
As evidenced by Kuraray, the solution viscosity of one of their SEBS copolymers at 10 wt.% in toluene at 30°C is 40 mPa-s (page 8, Table for Septon 8000 series).
Given that one of ordinary skill in the art would select a commercially-available SEBS component for a gasket composition and given the claimed viscosity is at a polymer concentration 50% higher than the published value by Kuraray for a SEBS copolymer, it is the examiner’s position that the SEBS component taught by White has the claimed solution viscosity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would choose a Kuraray SEBS for this application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US Patent 5,955,163, published 21 Sep. 1999, hereinafter White) in view of Toyosawa et al. (US Patent 6,663,975 B1, published 16 Dec. 2003, hereinafter Toyosawa).
Regarding claim 14, White teaches the elements of claim 1, and White teaches the inclusion of white oil in his composition (col. 4, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 26-31).
White does not specify the kinematic viscosity of the white oil.
Toyosawa teaches a resin composition for a gasket material that comprises oil with a kinematic viscosity preferably in the range of 100 to 10,000 mm2/s (cSt) (Abstract and col. 4, lines 13-17 and lines 28-30).
Given that White and Toyosawa are drawn to gasket materials comprising block copolymers and oil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an oil with a kinematic viscosity as taught by Toyosawa as the oil in the gasket composition taught by White. Since White and Toyosawa are both drawn to gasket materials comprising block copolymers and oil, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using an oil with the kinematic viscosity as taught by Toyosawa as the oil in the gasket composition taught by White. Further, Toyosawa teaches the oil is blended into the resin composition for the purpose of lowering the hardness of the resin composition (col. 5, lines 9-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Actega (DE 2020/09018687 U1, published 09 Aug. 2012) teaches a PVC-free sealing insert for twist-off crown caps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights