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, 3-7, 10, 11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ropele (US20140190925).
1. Ropele teaches a polyester resin closure (Fig. 1) that mounts onto a finish of a container; the polyester resin closure comprising: a plug seal (28 and 30) configured to seal against an inner surface of the finish; an annular wall (16 and 14) configured to seat against a top surface of a rim of the finish; an outer cylindrical wall (18) 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 feature (22) configured to engage with a tamper evidence ledge (40) of the finish; wherein the polyester resin comprises polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0012), polyethylene furandicarboxylate, or a copolymer of polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene furandicarboxylate.
3. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, 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 deform in the region of the plug seal (where the cap is flexible).
4. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, 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 (Fig. 1).
5. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, wherein the plug seal comprises an inner cylindrical wall (wall 28) that extends downwardly from the annular wall.
6. The polyester resin closure of claim 5, 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 (Fig. 1).
7. The polyester resin closure of claim 6, wherein the interference fit is configured to lock the polyester resin closure to the finish (Fig. 1).
10. The polyester resin closure of claim 5, wherein a lower wall (lower wall of 28) extends across a bottom of the inner cylindrical wall.
11. The polyester resin closure of claim 10, wherein the lower wall is configured to change shape in response to pressurized contents within the interior of the container (Fig. 1).
13. The polyester resin closure of claim 5, wherein the plug seal is configured to establish a sealing interface with the finish (Fig. 1).
14. The polyester resin closure of claim 13, wherein a width of the sealing interface is configured to bridge defects present in the finish (Fig. 1).
15. The polyester resin closure of claim 13, wherein the lower wall is configured to increase pressure on a sealing interface between the plug seal and the finish (Fig. 1).
16. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, wherein the tamper evidence feature comprises a folded band (22).
17. The polyester resin closure of claim 16, wherein the tamper evidence feature comprises a plurality of spaced-apart bridges (26) that connect the folded band to the outer cylindrical wall of the polyester resin closure.
18. The polyester resin closure of claim 17, wherein the plurality of spaced-apart bridges (26) is configured to break when the polyester resin closure is unthreaded from the finish.
19. The polyester resin closure of claim 18, wherein the folded band (22) is configured to be retained in position by the tamper evidence ledge when the polyester resin closure is unthreaded from the finish.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropele, in view of Jochem (US2005/0061766).
2. The polyester resin closure of claim 1, Ropele 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 thread engagement (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 Ropele, in view of the teachings of Jochem, by employing a snap-on threaded engagement to have an alternative easy way of attaching the closure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 12 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