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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: securing means (23) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1,9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US pub No 20b13/0087943) in view of Avalos (US Pub No 2022/0324602).
Tsuchiya discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
With respect to claim 1, Tsuchiya shows (see fig. 6) a reusable wide-necked container (disclosed paragraph 5) made of plastics material, in particular for non-liquid, flowable filling material, comprising a container base (40), a container body (30) and a neck (20b), wherein the neck (20b) has a neck portion (30) ending in an outlet opening (40) and adjoining a container shoulder (shown not labeled), wherein the neck portion (30) has an inner wall (31) and an outer wall (32), wherein securing means (23) for securing a lid (functionally claimed, reference is capable and made for lid) are arranged on the outer wall (32),wherein the container body (30) has in that the neck portion has a wall thickness (H) that is greater than 1.5 mm (paragraph 86 discloses 1.5mm at narrow neck 22, the neck portion is wider at threads and rings), and less than 3 mm, wherein the neck portion has a peripheral groove (33) at the transition to the container shoulder (shown not labeled) for providing a deformable connection (the section is plastic, plastic is deformable) between the container body and the neck portion.
However Tsuchiya does not disclose claim 1, an average wall thickness (W) that is greater than 0.5 mm, and less than 1.2 mm , claim 9, wherein the securing means for securing a the lid are designed as a single-start thread.
Avalos teaches a wall thickness of 1-1.5mm (paragraph 26) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of having a reusable bottle, the securing means for securing a the lid are designed as a single-start thread (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body of the container to have a wall of 1mm in order to durable enough to reuse, the single start thread is a reliable simple connection for the lid.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Avalos in view of further view of Druitt, (WO 99/03747) (copy added to file) .
over Tsuchiya in view of Avalos discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
However over Tsuchiya in view of Avalos does not disclose the securing means for securing a the lid are designed as a multi-start thread, wherein the number of thread turns is greater than 6 (6-8 disclosed page 2 line 15).
Druitt teaches the securing means for securing a the lid are designed as a multi-start thread wherein the number of thread turns is greater than 6 (6-8 ridges disclosed page 2 line 15) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of securing a lid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multi-start thread of Druitt in order to have more surface area to allow for a tighter stronger connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7,10-15, 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 04/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 04/03/2026.
In response to the 112, rejection. The office has removed the rejection. Claim 1, has no reduced thickness for decoupling claimed, so any connection that is deformable meets the claim. The prior art cited is mostly plastic container and plastic is a deformable material having deformable connections.
In response to applicant’s argument against the obviousness rejection. Attacking the references individually and pointing out they solve different problems does not carry much weight. The references are similar prior art, not teaching away from the claimed limitations. The limitations of claim 1, have been found in the prior art and applied with a teaching and motivational statement. In other words they may have different disclosed reasons but the prior art as applied shows the claimed limitations. Further, the thickness of the container body and the thickness of the neck portion are not critical until the thickness of the deformable connection at the peripheral groove, is claimed, which does not happen in claim 1. This is why claim 2, has been indicated as allowable. The claim is quite broad without the deformable connection having a reduced thickness for decoupling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/SHAWN M BRADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights