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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated December 19, 2025, claims 1 and 4-6 were amended, claims 2 and 3 were cancelled, and new claims 15 and 16 were presented.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The amendments to the claims overcome the double patenting rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the art rejections over Luzzato have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 5, line 2: "an circumferential direction" should read "a circumferential direction".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2021/0122532 to Dreyer et al. (hereinafter, “Dreyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Dreyer discloses a cap (closure 10, Figs. 1-3) for a container (para. [0001]), comprising a lateral wall (annotated Fig. 3 below) extending around an axis (annotated Fig. 3) and a transversal wall (annotated Fig. 3) arranged transversally to the axis (annotated Fig. 3), a separating line (annotated Fig. 2 below) being provided on the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 3) to define: a retaining ring (retaining ring 30, Fig. 1) intended to remain anchored to a neck of the container (para. [0075]), and a closing element (cap 15, Fig. 1) removably engageable with the neck to open or close the container (para. [0075]); wherein the separating line (annotated Fig. 2) extends around the axis (annotated Figs. 2-3) and is circumferentially interrupted for defining a joining portion (root portion 40, Fig. 3) which joins the retaining ring (retaining ring 30) and the closing element (cap 15), the separating line (annotated Fig. 2) has a first end (annotated Fig. 3) that terminates at a first edge of the joining portion (annotated Fig. 3), the cap (closure 10) further having an incision line (annotated Fig. 2) which extends in the lateral wall (annotated Fig. 2), transversally to the axis (see annotated Fig. 2), so that the separating line (annotated Fig. 2) is axially interposed between the retaining ring (retaining ring 30, see annotated Fig. 2) and the incision line (annotated Fig. 2), the incision line (annotated Fig. 2) has a first end (annotated Fig. 3) and a second end (annotated Fig. 3), the first end of the incision line (annotated Fig. 3) being adjacent axially to the first edge of the joining portion (annotated Fig. 3), two connecting bands (arms 37, 39, Figs. 2-3) being defined between the separating line (annotated Fig. 2) and the incision line (annotated Fig. 2) to keep the closing element (cap 15) connected to the retaining ring (retaining ring 30; see e.g., para. [0076]), wherein a plurality of breakable bridges (annotated Fig. 3; paras. [0006], [0036]) is provided along the separating line (annotated Fig. 2), the breakable bridges of said plurality (annotated Fig. 3; paras. [0006], [0036]) being suitable for being broken (paras. [0006], [0036]) the first time the closing element (cap 15) is brought into an open position (paras. [0006], [0036]) and at least one breakable bridge of said plurality of breakable bridges (annotated Fig. 3) is arranged in a position which, around the axis (annotated Fig. 3), is interposed between the first edge of the joining portion (annotated Fig. 3) and the first end of the incision line (annotated Fig. 3; see also paras. [0006], [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dreyer Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
602
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dreyer Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 4, Dreyer further discloses two breakable bridges of said plurality (annotated Fig. 3) are arranged in a position which, around the axis (annotated Fig. 3), is interposed between the joining portion (root portion 40) and one end of the incision line (annotated Fig. 3; see also paras. [0006], [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Dreyer further discloses a breakable bridge of said plurality (annotated Fig. 3) is substantially aligned (see annotated Fig. 3), in a circumferential direction with respect to the axis (annotated Fig. 3), with one end of the incision line (annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Dreyer further discloses the incision line (annotated Figs. 2-3) has an angular extent around the axis of 200° or less (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Dreyer further discloses the joining portion (root portion 40) has a substantially constant thickness in a plane perpendicular to the axis (see e.g., Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Dreyer further discloses a connecting band (arm 39, Figs. 2-3) of said two connecting bands (arms 37, 39) is defined between a peripheral part of the incision line (first end of incision line in annotated Fig. 3) and an end portion of the separating line (first end of separating line in annotated Fig. 3), a further connecting band (arm 37, Figs. 2-3) of said two connecting bands (arms 37, 39) being defined between a further peripheral part of the incision line (second end of incision line in annotated Fig. 3) and a further end portion of the separating line (left end of separating line in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Dreyer further discloses the connecting band (arm 39) is arranged symmetrically to the further connecting band (arm 37) relative to a plane containing the axis and a centre line of the joining portion (plane into the page going through axis and root portion 40, see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Dreyer further discloses the incision line (annotated Fig. 2) and the separating line (annotated Fig. 2) extend in respective parallel planes (both extend in horizontal planes in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Dreyer further discloses the closing element (cap 15) is provided with an inner thread suitable for engaging with an outer thread of the neck (see e.g., paras. [0057], [0075]).
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.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyer.
Regarding claim 12, Dreyer appears to disclose the joining portion (root portion 40) has an angular dimension around the axis of between 5° and 40° (see Fig. 3).
To the extent the joining portion is not expressly shown as having the claimed angular dimension, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cap of Dreyer to have the angular extent of the joining portion be between 10° and 30°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II-A); In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, ll. 20-23).
Regarding claim 14, Dreyer as modified above already includes the angular dimension of the joining portion (root portion 40) around the axis is between 10° and 30° (see modification above).
Regarding claim 15, Dreyer does not expressly disclose the incision line (annotated Fig. 2) has an angular extent greater than 180° around the axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cap of Dreyer to have the angular extent of the incision line be greater than 180°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (angle of the incision line), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II-A); In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, ll. 19-20).
Regarding claim 16, Dreyer does not expressly disclose the incision line (annotated Fig. 2) has an angular extent greater than 180° and up to 200° around the axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cap of Dreyer to have the angular extent of the incision line be greater than 180° and less than 200°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (angle of the incision line), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II-A); In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (see Specification at p. 9, ll. 19-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
Regarding claim 6, Dreyer further discloses a plurality of further breakable bridges provided along the incision line (see annotated Fig. 2). However, Dreyer does not disclose at least one further breakable bridge is arranged in a position interposed between the joining portion and a breakable bridge of the plurality of breakable bridges which is nearest to the joining portion. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dreyer to have such an arrangement in combination with the other claim elements without hindsight.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733