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 .
Response to Arguments
All objections and 35 USC 112 have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 in response to Office Action 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Krautkramer fails to teach a hinge along the upper edge of the base ring (page 6 para 3). Examiner points out that is not claimed. Applicant also mentions the hinge of Krautkramer is not a hinge of “conventional understanding”. Examiner points out Krautkramer hinging wherein broadest reasonable interpretation is used properly.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “all” the bridges are not along the upper edge of the base ring in Krautkramer as amended (page 6 para 4 into page 7). Examiner points out cited Figure 3 shows cited line 13 has all the bridges along the upper edge of the base ring 3.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the amended “notch” in the protective cover is not taught (page 7 para 1). Examiner agrees, but the argument is moot over new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-3, 5-8 and 11-13 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 20200207525 by Sung (hereinafter “Sung”).
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 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 with an inwardly protruding annular rib configured to engage the perimetric rib to prevent 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, via an inwardly protruding annularly extending rib shown as part 3a in Figs 5-6 engaging the mouthpiece’s perimetric rib);
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 all of said frangible bridges are positioned along the upper edge of the base ring (Fig 3, all bridges are in 13 which is shown to be a straight line on the upper edge of the base ring 3, meaning all are along), 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.
But Krautkramer/Vilmaro does not explicitly teach that the hinge is along a notch in the cover, the notch not being present.
Sung, however, discloses a similar cap having a plurality of strips comprising a hinge along a notch in the lower edge of the protective cover so that the hinge rotates relative to the upper edge of the base ring and the notch (examiner notes for “relative to the upper edge of the base ring” that Applicant Figure 4 shows the hinge strips below the upper edge of the base ring; Fig 5, hinge strip are shown as portions of “bending guide grooves 48” along a lower edge notch in the cover wherein the strips rotate relative to the base ring upper edge and also relative to the notch because [0044-46] “a portion of the bending guide portion 48 is thin” thereby bends when opening the cover i.e. the strips at least bend away from both the notch and edge, into a different position, therefore the hinge they comprise rotates relative to each of them).
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 cover of Krautkramer to have a notch as taught by Sung in order to advantageously allow the hinge to extend in an arrangement that reinforces the hinge tension it experiences while holding the cover open, thereby increasing stability while open, since the thin portions of 48 (Sung [0046]) “endure the tension acting on the indication ring 44a without incision” (Sung [0045]) “in the process of opening of the cap” (Fig 5).
In alternative/addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the hinge ends from the cover edge of Krautkramer into a cover notch edge, as taught by Sung (Figs 3-4 or 2), since it has been held that when the operation of the device is not modified by shifting the position of an operational element of the device, shifting the position is an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Hinging and stable open are not affected.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention since a POSITA would know how to combine the hinge and notch without destroying the primary function of having the cover stably held in an open position, since both a “tether” and “hinge”, for example as Applicant parses (page 6 para 3), are shown combined doing the same said primary function as the prior art (Sung Figs 3-4, or Fig 2). In other words Sung shows sequential adding of elements of the prior art is obvious to a POSITA because Sung also shows the combination as a concept known to a POSITA.
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) comprising:
a base ring with an inwardly protruding annular rib configured to engage the perimetric rib to prevent 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, via an inwardly protruding annularly extending rib shown as part 3a in Figs 5-6 engaging the mouthpiece’s perimetric rib);
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 all of said frangible bridges are positioned along the upper edge of the base ring (Fig 3, all bridges are in 13 which is shown to be a straight line on the upper edge of the base ring 3, meaning all are along), 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.
But Krautkramer/Vilmaro does not explicitly teach that the hinge is along a notch in the cover, the notch not being present.
Sung, however, discloses a similar cap having a plurality of strips comprising a hinge along a notch in the lower edge of the protective cover so that the hinge rotates relative to the upper edge of the base ring and the notch (examiner notes for “relative to the upper edge of the base ring” that Applicant Figure 4 shows the hinge strips below the upper edge of the base ring; Fig 5, hinge strip are shown as portions of “bending guide grooves 48” along a lower edge notch in the cover wherein the strips rotate relative to the base ring upper edge and also relative to the notch because [0044-46] “a portion of the bending guide portion 48 is thin” thereby bends when opening the cover i.e. the strips at least bend away from both the notch and edge, into a different position, therefore the hinge they comprise rotates relative to each of them).
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 cover of Krautkramer to have a notch as taught by Sung in order to advantageously allow the hinge to extend in an arrangement that reinforces the hinge tension it experiences while holding the cover open, thereby increasing stability while open, since the thin portions of 48 (Sung [0046]) “endure the tension acting on the indication ring 44a without incision” (Sung [0045]) “in the process of opening of the cap” (Fig 5).
In alternative/addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the hinge ends from the cover edge of Krautkramer into a cover notch edge, as taught by Sung (Figs 3-4 or 2), since it has been held that when the operation of the device is not modified by shifting the position of an operational element of the device, shifting the position is an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Hinging and stable open are not affected.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention since a POSITA would know how to combine the hinge and notch without destroying the primary function of having the cover stably held in an open position, since both a “tether” and “hinge”, for example as Applicant parses (page 6 para 3), are shown combined doing the same said primary function as the prior art (Sung Figs 3-4, or Fig 2). In other words Sung shows sequential adding of elements of the prior art is obvious to a POSITA because Sung also shows the combination as a concept known to a POSITA.
Regarding claims 2 and 12 (similar limitation, different dependency), Krautkramer/Vilmaro/Sung 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/Sung 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 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).
Therefore, 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)).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 Pub 20200207525 by Sung (hereinafter “Sung”) in view of US Pat 4279357 issued to Robinson (hereinafter “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 9, Krautkramer/Vilmaro/Sung 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 20200207525 by Sung (hereinafter “Sung”) 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
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 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
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights