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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Description references non-existent figures 4a and 4b
Reference characters 50a and 50b have been used to designate both “end” and “edge”
Reference character 102 has been used to designate “dispensing passage”, “dispensing opening”, “opening”, and “dispensing channel”
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Typo: “scaling membrane” should read “sealing membrane”
Typo: “the reusable container is attached to the container” should read “the reusable closure is attached to the container”
“second coupling means” should read “second coupling elements” to match claim language and avoid mean-plus-function language
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typos:
¶[0034] – “removable bolted” should read “removably bolted”
¶[0039] – remove duplicate “beyond the beyond the”
¶[0047] – “compromise” should read “comprise”
¶[0048] – “teeth paste” should read “tooth paste”
¶[0059] – “dispending” should read “dispensing”
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 1 recites the limitation "the opening of" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the male coupling" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the portion of" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troiano (US 6,364,164 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Troiano discloses a reusable closure adapted to be removably connected to a dispensing opening of a container, wherein the container is made of paperboard, fiberboard or cardboard (col. 1, lines 40-47), wherein the reusable closure comprises:
a base (item 22, figure 4) and a lid (item 25, figure 4), the base and lid being joint together by a hinge (item 27, figure 4) such that the lid is movable between an open position and a closed position (transition from figure 5 to figure 6);
wherein the base extends longitudinally from a first end (lower end of item 22) to a second end (item 29, figure 6);
wherein the base comprises:
a flowable medium dispensing passage extending along the longitudinal length of the base between the first end of the base and the second end of the base, wherein, in use, the dispensing passage is adapted to communicate with the dispensing opening of the container (col. 6, lines 1-11);
first coupling elements adapted to mate with second coupling elements forming part of the dispensing opening of the container such that, in use, the closure is attached to the container (col. 5, lines 33-49);
one or more cutting elements (item 32, figure 5) configured to break a sealing membrane situated within the opening of the container when the closure is attached to the container such that a flowable medium contained in the container can be dispensed through the dispensing opening of the container (col. 7, lines 29-49).
Regarding claim 2, Troiano discloses the reusable closure wherein the reusable closure is a flip-top closure and the lid is integrally formed within the base (col. 5, lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 3, Troiano discloses the reusable closure wherein the base further comprises a substantially cylindrical sidewall and an annular top platform, wherein the annular platform includes a platform cylindrical sidewall, wherein the platform cylindrical sidewall is situated radially inwardly with respect to the substantially cylindrical sidewall of the base, wherein the flowable medium dispensing passage is situated at or near the geometric center of the annular top platform (figure 7; col 5-6, lines 50-11).
Regarding claim 5, Troiano discloses the reusable closure wherein the first coupling elements correspond to outer threads situated on an outer part of a portion of the flowable medium dispensing passage (item 23, figure 8) and the second coupling elements correspond to a threaded inner part of the dispensing opening of the container (item 10, figure 8) such that, in use, the portion of the dispensing passage of the closure is removably bolted to the dispensing opening of the container (col. 5, lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 7, Troiano discloses the reusable closure wherein the lid comprises an outer circular sidewall (figure 4), and a base, wherein the base comprises a bottom surface (item 25a, figure 7), where the lid further comprises an annular spigot situated at or near the geometrical center of the bottom surface (item 26, figure 7; col. 5, lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 8, Troiano discloses the reusable closure wherein the annular spigot forms a male coupling element and the flowable medium dispensing passage forms a female coupling element adapted to receive the male coupling member such that, when the lid is in the closed position, the annular spigot of the lid is at least partially inserted into the flowable medium dispensing passage thereby hermetically sealing the dispensing passage (col. 5, lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 10, Troiano discloses a kit (figure 10) comprising:
a container comprising an interior space for housing a flowable product and a dispensing opening for dispensing the flowable product contained in the interior space (item 4, figure 10; claim 8), wherein the container is made of paperboard, fiberboard, or cardboard (col. 1, lines 40-47),
the reusable closure to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Troiano discloses the kit wherein the container comprises second coupling elements which correspond to a threaded inner part of the dispensing opening of the container (item 10, figure 8) such that, in use, the portion of the dispensing passage of the reusable closure is removably bolted to the dispensing opening of the container (col. 5, lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 12, Troiano discloses the kit wherein the container comprises a sealing element configured to be coupled within the dispensing opening of the container such that the dispensing opening is sealed and the flowable product cannot pass through the dispensing opening (col. 7-8, lines 65-12).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troiano in view of Lane (US 20120312832 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Troiano discloses the reusable closure according to claim 1, but is silent on the specific construction of the hinge.
Lane discloses a reusable closure (item 14, figure 4) wherein the hinge is a butterfly hinge (item 26, figure 1);
comprising at least a wing (item 130, figure 7) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end of the wing is attached to the lid and the second end of the wing is rotatably attached to a pivot, using one or more pins (item 128, figure 7), such that the pivot defines a support axis about which the lid pivots with respect to the base (¶[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the hinge of Troiano with the known hinge of Lane as the simple substitution yields predictable results (see MPEP 2143(B)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troiano in view of Seelhofer (US 20040089165 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Troiano discloses the reusable closure according to claim 1, wherein the cutting elements comprise a single cutting element (item 32, figure 5).
However, Troiano is silent on the specific structure of the cutting element.
Seelhofer discloses a reusable closure (figure 1) wherein the cutting element (item 10, figure 3) includes a first cutting edge and a second cutting edge, wherein the first cutting edge and second cutting edge are substantially straight (¶[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fashion the cutting element of Troiano with the cutting edges of Seelholfer in order to cleanly cut and open the sealing membrane (as taught in Seelhofer ¶[0005]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troiano in view of Heiner (US 6,302,287 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Troiano discloses the reusable closure according to claim 1.
However, Troiano is silent on the recycled/recyclable material of the closure.
Heiner discloses a reusable closure wherein the reusable closure is made of recyclable materials (col. 3, lines 14-21; col. 4, lines 22-31; col. 5, lines 7-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure taught by Troiano to be made of recyclable materials in order to use to material again in order to provide new articles of manufacture (as taught in Heiner col. 2, lines 30-42).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troiano.
Regarding claim 13, Troiano discloses a method for removably attaching a reusable closure to a dispensing passage of a container comprising:
providing the reusable closure according to claim 1;
providing a first container comprising an interior space for housing a flowable product and a dispensing opening for dispensing the flowable product contained in the interior space, wherein the first container is made of paperboard, fiberboard, or cardboard (item 4, figure 10);
coupling a sealing element within the dispensing opening of the first container such that the dispensing opening is sealed and the flowable product cannot pass through the dispensing opening (col. 7-8, lines 65-12);
bringing the reusable closure and the first container in proximity of each other, pushing the reusable closure towards the dispensing opening of the first container such that closure is coupled to the dispensing opening of the container (col. 4, lines 52-64; figure 10);
rotatably displacing the closure in the
Although Troiano discloses an “anti-clockwise” rotation, the choice between clockwise and anti-clockwise rotation is reversal of known threading directions; this is a design choice and does not change the function or result (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troiano in view of Erpenbeck (DE 29619195 U1).
Regarding claim 14, Troiano discloses the method according to claim 13, but is silent on detaching and removing the closure after use.
Erpenbeck discloses a method for removably attaching a reusable closure to a dispensing passage of a container comprising:
once the flowable product contained in the interior space of the first container is used, rotatably displacing the closure in the counter clockwise direction such that the closure is detached with respect to the first container, removing the first container with respect to the closure, whereby the removed first container can be re-filled and re-used or can be recycled (see Erpenbeck translation page 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Troiano so that the threaded closure may be detached from the container in order to be reused as taught by Erpenbeck.
Regarding claim 15, Troiano discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
providing a second container comprising an interior space for housing a flowable product and a dispensing opening for dispensing the flowable product contained in the interior space, wherein the second container is made of paperboard, fiberboard, or cardboard (item 4, figure 10);
coupling a sealing element within the dispensing opening of the second container such that the dispensing opening is sealed and the flowable product cannot pass through the dispensing opening (col. 7-8, lines 65-12);
bringing the reusable closure and the second container in proximity of each other, pushing the reusable closure towards the dispensing opening of the container such that closure is coupled to the dispensing opening of the container (col. 4, lines 52-64; figure 10);
rotatably displacing the reusable closure in the
However, Troiano does not teach the second container has been previously re-filled with flowable product.
Erpenbeck discloses the closure can be reused (see Erpenbeck translation page 7) and attached to a further re-filled container.
Claim 15 discloses nothing further than a repeat of the method in claim 13 on a second container using the detached closure from claim 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to re-attach the closure to a different container using the method taught by Troiano. Repetition of a known method on a further workpiece imparts no patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on PTO-892 disclose subject matter related to various types of reusable closures which are related to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J ARIF whose telephone number is (571)272-9620. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Paul R Durand can be reached at (571)272-4459. 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.
/NOAH JACOB ARIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights