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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irwin (US5,103,990).
1. A method of making a closure (Fig. 3) that mounts onto a finish of a container; the closure comprising at least one layer that comprises: an annular wall (34) configured to seat against a top surface of a rim of the finish; and an outer cylindrical wall (36) extending downward from the annular wall; the method comprising thermoforming a sheet of a polyester resin into the closure (column 3, lines 1-12).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the closure further comprises a plug seal (Fig. 2) configured to seal against an inner surface of the finish.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the polyester resin comprises polyethylene
terephthalate (column 3, lines 1-12), polyethylene furandicarboxylate, or a copolymer of polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene furandicarboxylate.
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Wild (US4,497,765).
2. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose thermoforming comprises applying the sheet of the polyester resin to a male mold. Attention, however is directed to Wild, that discloses a cap can be made in with a male mold assembly (column 5, lines 19-22), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Wild, by employing the closure to be made by a mold assembly, in order to have an alternative durable way of making the closure.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Lake (US4,302,415).
2. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose thermoforming comprises applying the sheet of the polyester resin to a male mold. Attention, however is directed to Lake, that discloses a container or cap can be made in with a male mold or female mold assembly (column 4, lines 32-38), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Lake, by employing the closure to be made by a mold assembly, in order to have an alternative durable way of making the closure.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the male mold comprises aluminum (this occurs when the reference is modified, Lake, column 5, lines 4-12).
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising demolding the closure from the male mold (this occurs when the reference is modified).
5. The method of claim 2, wherein thermoforming further comprises applying a vacuum or pressure to motivate the sheet of the polyester resin into the male mold (this occurs when the reference is modified, Lake, column 5, lines 4-12).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Padovani (US5,453,237).
8. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose comprising cutting the closure from the sheet of polyester resin after the thermoforming.
Attention, however is directed to Padovani, that discloses the thermoforming an object can be done with cutting (abstract), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Padovani, by employing the closure to be made by a cutting, in order to have an alternative durable way of making the closure.
Claim(s) 10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink (US2021/0179323).
10. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the closure further comprises a tamper evidence feature configured to engage with a tamper evidence ledge of the finish. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses a tamper evident feature (Fig. 4 at 230), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure with such a feature, in order to know when the closure has been tampered with.
12. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the outer cylindrical wall comprises internal threads configured to engage with the finish. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses threads (Fig. 4), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure with such threads, in order to make sure the closure is better secured.
13. The method of claim 1, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the closure comprises an outer layer that comprises: an outer layer annular wall; and an outer layer outer cylindrical wall that extends downwardly from the outer layer annular wall; and an inner layer that comprises: an inner layer annular wall; and an inner layer outer cylindrical wall that extends downwardly from the inner layer annular wall. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses the closure can be layered (Fig. 4), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure to be layered, in order to have a more durable multilayered closure.
14. The method of claim 13, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the outer layer outer cylindrical wall comprises a plurality of knurls. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses a knurls (Fig. 2 at 121), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure with knurls, in order to have a more structurally secure closure wall.
15. The method of claim 13, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose an inner surface of the inner layer outer cylindrical wall comprises internal threads configured to engage with the finish. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses threads (Fig. 4), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure with such threads, in order to make sure the closure is better secured.
16. The method of claim 13, Irwin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the closure further comprises a tamper evidence feature that comprises a tamper evidence band. Attention, however is directed to Kreinbrink, that discloses a tamper evident feature that is a band (Fig. 4 at 230), therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Irwin, in view of Kreinbrink, by employing the closure with such a feature, in order to know when the closure has been tampered with.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the outer layer comprises a different polyester resin than the inner layer (this occurs when the reference is modified, see paragraph 0033 in Kreinbrink that teaches the closure layers can be made from a combination of materials).
18. The method of claim 13, wherein the inner layer is thermoformed from a first sheet of polyester resin, and the second layer is thermoformed from a second sheet of polyester resin (this occurs when the reference is modified, see paragraph 0033 in Kreinbrink that teaches the closure layers can be made from a combination of materials).
20. The method of claim 18, further comprising combining the inner layer that is
thermoformed from a first sheet of polyester resin and the second layer that is
thermoformed from a second sheet of polyester resin (this occurs when the reference is modified, see paragraph 0033 in Kreinbrink that teaches the closure layers can be made from a combination of materials).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
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