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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The Applicant filed an IDS 6/23/2026 citing references EP1502871, EP1847469, and WO 1998039228. However, the supporting references filed with the IDS was CN 102046485.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 11, 14, 18, and 32 include random reference lines without reference numbers
Paragraph [0095] references an opening (56A), which is not shown in the figures.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “56” has been used to designate both a lid and an opening (sere Paragraph [0082]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both a closure and a container (sere Paragraph [0095]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 currently says “The closure of claim 1 in combination with container of a fluent substance…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “The closure of claim 1 in combination with a container of a fluent substance…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a second triangular projection" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as neither claim 1 or claim 9 claim a “first triangular projection”.
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, 2, 12, 13, 15-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hierzer et al (US 2005/0205607) (hereinafter Hierzer).
Regarding Claim 1
Hierzer teaches a closure for use in restricting access to a substance that may be stored within a container (Fig. 2, 3, 5, 7-9), the container (14) having an opening (18) and at least one laterally extending flange (28) located laterally outwardly of the opening, said closure (12) comprising: a body for being located at the opening of the container, said body having a deck (36), said deck defining an interior side and an exterior side and a central axis extending between said interior and said exterior sides, said deck including at least one orifice (40) communicating between said interior side and said exterior side, said body having an internal wall (42) depending from said deck with means (46) for attaching said closure to the container, said body having at least one torque rib (88 and 94) extending therefrom for confronting the at least one laterally extending flange (28) of the container to inhibit relative rotation between said body and the container, and said at least one torque rib being non-planar (in that it is 3D having angled surfaces) (Paragraphs [0021] and [0025]).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
374
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
484
417
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
304
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
294
362
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Hierzer teaches a skirt (52) depending from said deck (36) and surrounding said internal wall (42), wherein said at least one torque rib (88 and 94) extends from said skirt, as can be seen in Fig. 7 above.
Regarding Claim 12
Hierzer teaches said means on said internal wall (42) includes at least one screw thread (46) for mating with at least one screw thread (20) on the container.
Regarding Claim 13
Hierzer teaches a lid (56) connected to said body, said lid being movable between i) a closed position (Fig. 3 and 5) occluding said at least one orifice, and ii) an open position (Fig. 2) exposing said at least one orifice to permit communication of a substance through said body.
Regarding Claim 15
Hierzer teaches the closure (12) of claim 1 in combination with a container (14) for a fluent substance, said container having an opening (18) and at least one laterally extending flange (28) located laterally outwardly of said opening.
Regarding Claim 16
Hierzer teaches said at least one laterally extending flange (28) is fin-shaped and defines a flat end face (32) for confronting said at least one torque rib (88 and 94) of said body.
Regarding Claim 17
Hierzer teaches said at least one laterally extending flange (28) defines an axially extending ramp (30) proximate to said flat end face (32).
Regarding Claim 21
Hierzer teaches the closure (12) of claim 1 in combination with container (14) of a fluent substance, said closure, container, and fluent substance together defining a package.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 13, 15-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston et al. (US 2008/0296251) (hereinafter Johnston).
Regarding Claim 1
Johnston teaches a closure for use in restricting access to a substance that may be stored within a container (below – Fig. 1, 2A, and 4A) , the container having an opening (shown at 31) and at least one laterally extending flange (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d) located laterally outwardly of the opening, said closure comprising: a body for being located at the opening of the container, said body having a deck (67), said deck defining an interior side and an exterior side and a central axis (A) extending between said interior and said exterior sides, said deck including at least one orifice (29) communicating between said interior side and said exterior side, said body having an internal wall (25) depending from said deck with means (60a/60b) for attaching said closure to the container, said body having at least one torque rib (64a, 64b, 64c, 64d) extending therefrom for confronting the at least one laterally extending flange (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d) of the container to inhibit relative rotation between said body and the container, and said at least one torque rib being non-planar (i.e. arcuate) (Paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0035], and [0037]).
PNG
media_image7.png
597
387
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
578
471
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Johnston teaches a skirt (21) depending from said deck (67) and surrounding said internal wall (25), wherein said at least one torque rib (64a, 64b, 64c, 64d) extends from said internal wall (25).
Regarding Claim 12
Johnston teaches said means (60a/60b) on said internal wall (25) includes at least one screw thread for mating with at least one screw thread (36a/36b) on the container.
Regarding Claim 13
Johnston teaches a lid (22) connected to said body, said lid being movable between i) a closed position (Fig. 1) occluding said at least one orifice, and ii) an open position (Fig. 4A) exposing said at least one orifice to permit communication of a substance through said body.
Regarding Claim 15
Johnston teaches the closure (20) of claim 1 in combination with a container (10) for a fluent substance, said container having an opening (shown at 31) and at least one laterally extending flange (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d) located laterally outwardly of said opening.
Regarding Claim 16
Johnston teaches said at least one laterally extending flange (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d) is fin-shaped and defines a flat end face (shown at 39a and 39c, for example, in Fig. 2B below) for confronting said at least one torque rib (64a, 64b, 64c, 64d) of said body.
PNG
media_image9.png
283
303
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17
Johnston teaches said at least one laterally extending flange (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d) defines an axially extending ramp (shown at 37a, for example, above) proximate to said flat end face.
Regarding Claim 21
Johnston teaches the closure (20) of claim 1 in combination with a container (10) of a fluent substance, said closure (20), container (10), and fluent substance together defining a package.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 18, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hierzer as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7
Hierzer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Hierzer further teaches a plurality of torque ribs (88 and 94). Hierzer teaches a predetermined minimum unscrewing torque required to defeat the retention structure (i.e. torque ribs and laterally extending flanges) is preferably at least 30 inch-pounds of torque. Hierzer does not specifically teach in an assembled configuration with the container said body is configured to resist rotation relative to the container when subjected to a torque up to about 40 inch-pounds (4.5 N-m), or about 60 inch- pounds (6.8 N-m).
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in an assembled configuration, to have the body being configured to resist rotation relative to the container when subjected to a torque up to about 40 inch-pounds (4.5 N-m), or about 60 inch- pounds (6.8 N-m) in order to increase the child resistant security of the container and closure. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the relative rotation resistance between the container and the closure through routine experimentation in order to achieve an assembly that has increased child resistance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19
Hierzer teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above. Hierzer further teaches said closure includes a plurality of said torque ribs (88 and 94) and said container includes a plurality of laterally extending flanges (28). Hierzer teaches a predetermined minimum unscrewing torque required to defeat the retention structure (i.e. torque ribs and laterally extending flanges) is preferably at least 30 inch-pounds of torque. Hierzer does not specifically teach in an assembled condition of said closure and said container, said body is configured to resist rotation relative to the container when subjected to a torque up to about 40 inch-pounds (4.5 N-m), or about 60 inch- pounds (6.8 N-m).
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in an assembled configuration of said closure and container, to have the body being configured to resist rotation relative to the container when subjected to a torque up to about 40 inch-pounds (4.5 N-m), or about 60 inch- pounds (6.8 N-m) in order to increase the child resistant security of the container and closure. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the relative rotation resistance between the container and the closure through routine experimentation in order to achieve an assembly that has increased child resistance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 22
Hierzer teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above. Hierzer further teaches said at least one laterally extending flange (28) defines an axially extending ramp (30).
Hierzer does not specifically teach said ramp being angled relative to a horizontal plane between about 5 and 15 degrees.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have said ramp being angled relative to a horizontal plane between about 5 and 15 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Applicant has not disclosed that having said ramp being angled relative to a horizontal plane between about 5 and 15 degrees provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of have said ramp being angled relative to a horizontal plane between about 5 and 15 degrees does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Northup (US 4128184).
Regarding Claims 14 and 20
Johnston teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as shown above. Johnston further teaches said closure (20) includes a plurality of torque ribs (64a, 64b, 64c, 64d) and said container (10) includes a plurality of laterally extending flanges (38a, 38b, 38c, 38d).
Johnston does not specifically teach said body is configured to move from an unassembled configuration with said container into an assembled configuration with said container when subjected to a torque not exceeding about 20 inch-pounds (2.25 N- m).
Northup teaches a closure for use in restricting access to a substance that may be stored within a container (below – Fig. 1-3), the container having an opening (shown at 11) and at least one laterally extending flange (12) located laterally outwardly of the opening, said closure comprising: a body for being located at the opening of the container, said body having a deck (22), said deck defining an interior side and an exterior side and a central axis extending between said interior and said exterior sides, said body having a wall (21) depending from said deck with means for attaching said closure (20) to the container (10), said body having at least one torque rib (23) extending therefrom for confronting the at least one laterally extending flange (12) of the container to inhibit relative rotation between said body and the container, and said at least one torque rib being non-planar (i.e. arcuate); wherein said closure includes a plurality of torque ribs (23) and said container includes a plurality of laterally extending flanges (12), wherein said body is configured to move from an unassembled configuration (Fig. 2) with said container into an assembled configuration (Fig. 3) with said container when subjected to a torque not exceeding about 20 inch-pounds (Col. 2, Ln. 30-45, and Col. 4, Ln. 2-6).
PNG
media_image10.png
326
265
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
388
549
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Johnston and Northup are analogous inventions in the field of containers and closures having laterally extending flanges and corresponding torque ribs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container and closure of Johnston with the teachings of the body being moved from an unassembled configuration on the container to an assembled configuration on the container with a torque not exceeding about 20 inch-pounds so that an average user can assemble the container and closure (Col. 4, Ln. 2-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, 10, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art – Hierzer (cited above) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach: at least one reinforcing rib extending between said internal wall and said skirt, wherein said at least one torque rib extends transversely from said reinforcing rib (claim 3), said at least one torque rib defines a laterally outward side facing away from said central axis and a laterally inward side facing toward said central axis, and said laterally outward side includes a first triangular projection (claim 8); or said at least one torque rib defines a laterally outward side facing away from said central axis and a laterally inward side facing toward said central axis, said laterally outward side includes a first triangular projection, and said laterally inward side includes a second triangular projection oppositely facing relative to said first triangular projection (claim 10). Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3; and claim 11 depends from claim 10, and as such would be allowed.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art – Hierzer (cited above) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. However, the closest prior art does not teach: said at least one torque rib defines a laterally outward side facing away from said central axis and a laterally inward side facing toward said central axis, and said laterally inward side includes a triangular projection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 24 June 2026
Prosecution Insights