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 .
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(s) 1, 3-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US8,469,213), in view of Struble (US5,941,422).
1. Ishii teaches a polyester resin closure that mounts onto a finish of a container (Fig. 1); the polyester resin closure comprising: an annular wall (8) configured to seat against a top surface of a rim of the finish; an outer cylindrical wall (10) extending downward from the annular wall, wherein the outer cylindrical wall comprises internal threads (20) configured to engage with the finish; and a tamper evidence band (6) configured to engage with a tamper evidence ledge of the finish, wherein the tamper evidence band is configured to form a tether (58b) for attaching the closure to the container when the closure is removed from the finish. Ishii DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the annular wall comprises one or more welds to the rim of the finish at one or more points. Attention, however is directed to Struble, which discloses welds at points on the finish (column 4, lines 1-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Ishii, in view of Struble, by employing such welds, in order to add to the structural stability of the finish.
3. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, further comprising a plug seal (14) configured to seal against an inner surface of the finish (Figs. 1-7).
4. The polyester resin closure of claim 3, wherein the outer cylindrical wall comprises an outer skirt having a clearance with a corresponding outer surface of the rim to enable the polyester resin closure to elastically deform in the region of the plug seal (Figs. 1-7).
5. The polyester resin closure of claim 3, wherein the plug seal comprises a chamfer for guiding the plug seal past a lip of the inner surface of the finish when the polyester resin closure is capped onto the container (Figs. 1-7).
6. The polyester resin closure of claim 3, wherein the plug seal comprises an inner cylindrical wall that extends downwardly from the annular wall.
7. The polyester resin closure of claim 6, wherein the inner cylindrical wall comprises a radial surface that is dimensioned for an interference fit with a corresponding inwardly facing surface of the rim of finish for sealing (Figs. 1-7).
8. The polyester resin closure of claim 7, wherein the interference fit is configured to lock the polyester resin closure to the finish (Figs. 1-7).
11. The polyester resin closure of claim 6, wherein a lower wall extends across a bottom of the inner cylindrical wall (Figs. 1-7).
12. The polyester resin closure of claim 11, wherein the lower wall is configured to change shape in response to pressurized contents within the interior of the container (Figs. 1-7).
13. The polyester resin closure of claim 12, wherein the lower wall has a concave upward shape that becomes a convex upward shape when pressure is applied by pressurized contents within the interior of the container (Figs. 1-7).
14. The polyester resin closure of claim 6, wherein the plug seal is configured to establish a sealing interface with the finish (Figs. 1-7).
15. The polyester resin closure of claim 14, wherein a width of the sealing interface is configured to bridge defects present in the finish (Figs. 1-7).
16. The polyester resin closure of claim 14, wherein the lower wall is configured to increase pressure on a sealing interface between the plug seal and the finish (Figs. 1-7).
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(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii, in view of Struble and in further view of Jochem (US2005/0061766).
2. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, Ishii DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the internal threads are configured for a snap-on engagement with the finish. Attention, however is directed to Jochem which discloses a snap-on threaded closure (Jochem, paragraph 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Ishii, in view of Jochem, by employing a snap-on feature, in order to have an easy way of getting the closure on.
17. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, Ishii DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the polyester resin comprises polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene furandicarboxylate, or a copolymer of polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene furandicarboxylate. However polyethylene terephthalate closures are old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Ishii, by employing the closure to be polyethylene terephthalate, in order to use an alternative durable material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claim 18 is allowable. Subpart d is not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations. Claim 19 is allowable. Subpart d is not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendment defines over the prior art. Examiner disagrees. See the updated rejection above, on how the prior art reads on the amended claim limitations.
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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights