DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, line 1 “protective cove” should read “protective cover”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “fast” in “fast-opening” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are also rejected for depending upon the rejected parent.
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 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.
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 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220002021 by Krautkramer (hereinafter “Krautkramer”; which is merely an official English translation of WO 2020099200) in view of EP 1529736 issued to Vilmaro et al. (hereinafter “Vilmaro”).
Regarding claim 1, Krautkramer teaches a cap (Fig 10, 10) for a container (Fig 11, a container is the bottle defining bottle neck 20), the cap being fast-opening and configured to be arranged on a mouthpiece (Fig 9, 10 on mouthpiece of 20, and shown openable, Fig 10) having an external side surface with a perimetric rib protruding outwardly therefrom (best seen in Fig 5, unlabeled in Fig 9A, a perimetric rib outwardly protruding from an external surface of 20 is pilferproof ring 21),
the cap comprising:
a base ring preventing a separation of the cap from the mouthpiece (Fig 9A, a base ring preventing complete separation of the cap from the mouthpiece of 20 is tamper-evident band 3);
a protective cover for opening and closing the mouthpiece (Fig 5, a cover that protects the mouthpiece while opening and closing the cap is head plate 1 with skirt 2);
a hinge (Figs 3 & 10A, a hinge is shown at a junction between 11 and 15 and 16) making the base ring (3) and the protective cover (1 with 2) integral with each other (1, 2, 3 shown integral to each other), the hinge being configured to be produced in a single piece by molding a plastic material ([0011] injection molded [0046] plastic material means single piece base ring and cover through hinge); and
a series of frangible bridges connecting a lower edge of the protective cover with an upper edge of the base ring when the protective cover is arranged for closure on the base ring and on the mouthpiece (Figs 2-3, weakening line 13 is of [0068] “frangible bridges”, connecting a cover lower edge to an upper edge of the base ring, when closed, Fig 9), wherein
the hinge comprises,
a plurality of strips or bridges spaced apart from each other and connecting the protective cover to the base ring (Fig 3, strips are bands 15 and 16 that connect cover to ring and are spaced apart), and
an extension enlarged outwardly (Fig 9A, extension 11b outward from and enlarging the hinge) and forming an integral part of a lower end of the protective cover facing the base ring (11b is integral at a lower end of the cover (i.e. at a lower portion of 2 that faces the base ring 3)), the extension becoming engaged with the perimetric rib (21) of the mouthpiece when the protective cover rotates around the hinge from a closed position to an open position to create a stable positioning in the open position of the protective cover (Fig 10A, 11b engages 21, shown rotated around the hinge to open the cover, which is “in a stable position”, [0130]), and wherein
a thread is provided inside a side wall of the protective cover (Fig 5, shows a thread on 2 of cover 1 with 2), the thread being arranged to be coupled with a thread defined on an external wall of the mouthpiece (Fig 5, thread of 20).
But Krautkramer does not explicitly teach a multi-thread or multi-start thread.
Vilmaro, however, discloses a multi-thread/multi-start thread ([0013], “a triple start type internal thread 7 or in any case with more than one start and therefore capable of being tightened and released from the neck C with multi-start thread”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threads of Krautkramer cover and mouthpiece to be multi-thread/multi-start thread of three or more (including the option of six on the mouthpiece and twelve on the cover, specifically) as it is no more than a simple substitution of one threading type for another that is known in the art for un/screwing a cap and would only produce the predictable results of securing the cap. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Regarding claim 11, Krautkramer teaches a cap (Fig 10, 10) and mouthpiece assembly for a container (Fig 11, a container is the bottle defining bottle neck 20, which has a mouthpiece), the cap being fast-opening and
comprising:
a base ring preventing a separation of the cap from the mouthpiece (Fig 9A, a base ring preventing complete separation of the cap from the mouthpiece of 20 is tamper-evident band 3);
a protective cover for opening and closing the mouthpiece (Fig 5, a cover that protects the mouthpiece while opening and closing the cap is head plate 1 with skirt 2);
a hinge (Figs 3 & 10A, a hinge is shown at a junction between 11 and 15 and 16) making the base ring (3) and the protective cover (1 with 2) integral with each other (1, 2, 3 shown integral to each other), the hinge being configured to be produced in a single piece by molding a plastic material ([0011] injection molded [0046] plastic material means single piece base ring and cover through hinge); and
a series of frangible bridges connecting a lower edge of the protective cover with an upper edge of the base ring when the protective cover is arranged for closure on the base ring and on the mouthpiece (Figs 2-3, weakening line 13 is of [0068] “frangible bridges”, connecting a cover lower edge to an upper edge of the base ring, when closed, Fig 9), wherein
the hinge comprises,
a plurality of strips or bridges spaced apart from each other and connecting the protective cover to the base ring (Fig 3, strips are bands 15 and 16 that connect cover to ring and are spaced apart), and
an extension enlarged outwardly (Fig 9A, extension 11b outward from and enlarging the hinge) and forming an integral part of a lower end of the protective cover facing the base ring (11b is integral at a lower end of the cover (i.e. at a lower portion of 2 that faces the base ring 3)), the extension becoming engaged with a perimetric rib (21) on the mouthpiece when the protective cover rotates around the hinge from a closed position to an open position to create a stable positioning in the open position of the protective cover (Fig 10A, 11b engages 21, shown rotated around the hinge to open the cover, which is “in a stable position”, [0130]), and wherein
a thread is provided inside a side wall of the protective cover (Fig 5, shows a thread on 2 of cover 1 with 2), the thread being arranged to be coupled with a thread defined on an external wall of the mouthpiece (Fig 5, thread).
But Krautkramer does not explicitly teach a multi-thread or multi-start thread.
Vilmaro, however, discloses a multi-thread/multi-start thread ([0013], “a triple start type internal thread 7 or in any case with more than one start and therefore capable of being tightened and released from the neck C with multi-start thread”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threads of Krautkramer cover and mouthpiece to be multi-thread/multi-start thread of three or more (including the option of six on the mouthpiece and twelve on the cover, specifically) as it is no more than a simple substitution of one threading type for another that is known in the art for un/screwing a cap and would only produce the predictable results of securing the cap. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Regarding claims 2 and 12 (similar limitation, different dependency), Krautkramer/Vilmaro further teaches the multi-thread or multi-start thread is formed by twelve sections of thread inside the side wall of the protective cover (Vilmaro, twelve modifying Krautkramer cover). See details in the parent claims 1 and 11 rejection above, respectively, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 (similar limitation, different dependency), Krautkramer/Vilmaro further teaches the plurality of threads defined on the external wall of the mouthpiece comprises six sections of thread (Vilmaro, six modifying Krautkramer mouthpiece) to provide an arrangement configured to be coupled with the twelve sections of thread inside the protective cover (Vilmaro, the twelve modified on Krautkramer cover, necessarily coupled). See details in the parent claims 1 and 11 rejection above, respectively, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Krautkramer/Vilmaro does not teach a mismatched number of threads.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of threads to mismatch cover count to mouthpiece count (i.e. either way: make 12 into 6 or 6 into 12 for either element), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (still threads, “easily and correctly”, Applicant [0044]). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
Regarding claims 4 and 14 (similar limitation, different dependency), Krautkramer further teaches the extension enlarged outwardly (Fig 9A, 11b) is shaped to have facets (Fig 9A shows at least two facets of 11b as distinct surfaces) that create a cam effect (Fig 9A, cam effect shown) which, when the protective cover rotates for opening, increases an engagement of the protective cover with the perimetric rib of the mouthpiece (Fig 10A shows increased engagement by having both facets engaged at full opening versus just one facet engagement that occurs during rotation).
Regarding claim 5, Krautkramer further teaches the plurality of strips or bridges are foldable (Fig 4C shows 15 and 16 shown twisted, and “stable position in which it remains after opening and after being folded over”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Krautkramer further teaches the protective cover has an inverted cup shape (Fig 9, cover 1 with 2 is inverted cup shape) and comprises a flat upper closing wall (Fig 5, plate wall 1 shown flat) and a knurled side wall (Fig 9 shows knurl on skirt side wall 2).
Regarding claim 7, Krautkramer’s first embodiment discussed above does not explicitly teach a collar.
However, a second embodiment of Krautkramer teaches a similar tethered bottle cap comprising:
a collar or annular element extends from an interior face of the flat upper closing wall of the protective cover toward an internal portion of the cap, the collar or annular element having a smaller diameter than the protective cover and being coaxial therewith, the collar or annular element being configured to engage an internal wall of the mouthpiece (see examiner annotated Krautkramer Figure 11, hereinafter “EAFK11”, an annular collar is shown having a smaller concentric diameter than a cover (i.e. coaxial to cover), extending from an interior surface of a flat upper closing wall (i.e. top portion of the cap) toward an internal portion of the cap and engaging an internal wall of the mouthpiece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Krautkramer with a collar as taught by Krautkramer in order to advantageously enhance the seal against jostling open.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Krautkramer does not explicitly teach two teeth insertable to two seats within the cap wall.
Vilmaro, however, teaches a similar tethered bottle cap comprising:
the lower edge of a protective cover has two recessed seats defined on opposite sides of the protective cover, and wherein the upper edge of the base ring has two shaped teeth or extensions arranged on opposite sides of a base ring and insertable in the recessed seats (see examiner annotated Vilmaro Figure 3, hereinafter “EAFV3”; EAFV3, at least two teeth (on upper edge of base ring) are shown insertable in corresponding at least two recessed seats between portions 10 (on lower edge of cover), on opposite sides of the cap (left-right from viewer perspective)).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
367
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover lower edge and ring upper edge of Krautkramer with teeth (in ring) inserted in seats (in cover) as taught by Vilmaro in order to beneficially save material cost over many iterations versus otherwise not having the gaps provided by the teeth and recesses (e.g. no gaps as in Krautkramer Fig 9).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220002021 by Krautkramer (hereinafter “Krautkramer”; which is merely an official English translation of WO 2020099200) in view of EP 1529736 issued to Vilmaro et al. (hereinafter “Vilmaro”) in view of US Pat 4279357 issued to Robinson (hereinafter “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 9, Krautkramer/Vilmaro does not explicitly teach a reinforcing web on the underside of the cover.
Robinson, however, teaches a similar tethered cap comprising:
a protective cover has a reinforcing and strengthening web defined in an internal wall of the protective cover beneath the external wall of the protective cover (Figs 1 & 3 show ribs corrugations 35 in the shape of a web in the internal wall of the cover that necessarily strengthen and reinforce the cover).
The purpose of a reinforced lid is to strengthen the lid against bend fatigue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Krautkramer with a reinforcing web ribs structure as taught by Robinson in order to beneficially strengthen the cover versus puncturing or point impact into the cover surface above the web, and advantageously provide a solid feel to consumers who associate a more solid feel with higher quality, and an increased sureness of grip.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220002021 by Krautkramer (hereinafter “Krautkramer”; which is merely an official English translation of WO 2020099200) in view of EP 1529736 issued to Vilmaro et al. (hereinafter “Vilmaro”) in view of US Pub 20230042976 by Kainz et al. (hereinafter “Kainz”; which is merely an official English translation of WO 2021099358).
Regarding claim 10, Krautkramer further teaches that the cap is configured to be coupled with the mouthpiece (Fig 4C, cap shown coupled to mouthpiece; made of polyethylene [0002] screw closures (i.e. a closure device of cap and mouthpiece) are plastic and typically polyethylene or polypropylene),
But does not explicitly teach that the cap is made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and the mouthpiece made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Kainz, however, teaches a cap of HDPE and container mouth of PET ([0022] [0023]). The purpose of HDPE is to be durable and easy to fabricate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Krautkramer to be HDPE plastic as taught by Kainz in order to be easier to manufacture and more durable use of the cap, beneficially adhering to standardized materials for caps and closures ([0022] [0023]).
In addition, and in the alternative, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Krautkramer and Kainz before them at the time the application was filed, to make the cap and mouthpiece of HDPE and PET respectively, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Krautkramer further teaches that the cap and the mouthpiece made of polyethylene (made of polyethylene [0002] screw closures (i.e. a closure device of cap and mouthpiece) are plastic and typically polyethylene or polypropylene),
But does not explicitly teach that the protective cover is made of HDPE and the mouthpiece of PET.
Kainz, however, teaches a cap of HDPE and container mouth of PET ([0022] [0023]). The purpose of HDPE is to be durable and easy to fabricate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Krautkramer to be HDPE plastic as taught by Kainz in order to be easy to manufacture and durable use of the cap, beneficially adhering to standardized materials for caps and closures ([0022] [0023]).
In addition, and in the alternative, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Krautkramer and Kainz before them at the time the application was filed, to make the cap and mouthpiece of HDPE and PET respectively, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20230010977 – parent application publication
WO 2021148705 – teeth in recesses (Fig 1)
GB 2140787 – teeth in recesses defined by notches 13 and cams 12 (Fig 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733