DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that while the amendments overcome the outstanding grounds of rejection as they interpreted Taber, the claims are still rejected over the same reference to Taber, albeit based on a different embodiment therein. See grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,231,020 (Taber).
Regarding claim 1, Taber, embodiment of Figures 9-13 (described as being identical to that of Figures 1-8 with the exception of the bumpers 102 which are read as the claimed upper knurls) teaches a closure structure, comprising:
a cap (10) including a top plate portion (12) and a tube portion (14), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (see Figure 4A), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (portion above weakened section 41) and a tamper evidence ring portion (portion below weakened section 41), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (the portion of material remaining after slitting; see col. 4, lines 66-67), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface (radially inner surface of upper skirt) and an outer-circumferential surface (radially outer surface of upper skirt), the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion being formed with a threaded portion (54), the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion being formed with an upper knurl (102) and a side knurl (34), the upper knurl being formed at a position including an upper end of the outer-circumferential surface (upper knurls 102 have lower portions 116 which are formed at an upper end of the outer circumferential surface 108 as seen in Figure 9), the upper knurl including a plurality of upper knurl projection portions (102; see Figures 9 and 11), the side knurl being formed at a position lower than the upper knurl (see Figure 9 showing ribs 34 located below knurl 20); and
a spout (57) having a mouth portion (upper end where thread 59 is located) to which the cap is attached (see Figure 4B),
wherein each respective outer edge of the upper knurl projection portions has an inclination angle with respect to the top plate portion that progressively increases downwardly from an upper end of the main portion (by virtue of curved sections 114 in Figure 9), a tangential direction at each upper end of the respective outer edges of the upper knurl projection portions being substantially parallel to the top plate portion (knurl portions 112 are substantially parallel with top plate portion 12 as seen in Figure 9), a tangential direction at each lower end of the respective outer edges of the upper knurl projection portions being substantially parallel to the main portion (lower portions 116 are substantially parallel with upper skirt portion 26 as seen in Figures 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 2, the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion has a smooth annular lower region (30), and the lower region is formed at a position lower than the side knurl (see 30 located below 34 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion has an annular recessed portion (18), the annular recessed portion being formed at a position including the upper end of the outer-circumferential surface (see Figure 5), the annular recessed portion extending in the circumferential direction of the main portion (see Figure 1), and the upper knurl projection portions protruding from an outer surface of the annular recessed portion (see 20 protruding from 18 in Figures 1 and 2 which extend from an inner surface of the recessed portion).
Regarding claim 4, each of the upper knurl projection portions is formed in a plate shape perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Examiner notes the knurls 20 are rounded and represent a portion of a plate in cross-section, as seen in Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Taber, embodiment of Figures 9-13 (described as being identical to that of Figures 1-8 with the exception of the bumpers 102 which are read as the claimed upper knurls) teaches a container (55) with a closure structure (10), comprising:
the closure structure including a cap (10) and a spout (57), the cap including a top plate portion (12) and a tube portion (14), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (see Figure 4A), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (portion above weakened section 41) and a tamper evidence ring portion (portion below weakened section 41), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (the portion of material remaining after slitting; see col. 4, lines 66-67), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface (radially inner surface of upper skirt) and an outer-circumferential surface (radially outer surface of upper skirt), the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion being formed with a threaded portion (54), the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion being formed with an upper knurl (20) and a side knurl (34), the upper knurl being formed at a position including an upper end of the outer-circumferential surface (see Figure 1 showing ribs 34 extending to an upper end of the skirt), the upper knurl including a plurality of upper knurl projection portions (102; see Figures 9 and 11), the side knurl being formed at a position lower than the upper knurl (see Figure 1 showing ribs 34 located below knurl 20), the having a mouth portion (upper end where thread 59 is located) to which the cap is attached (see Figure 4B); and
a container (55) to which the closure structure is attached (col. 4, lines 50-51),
wherein each respective outer edge of the upper knurl projection portions has an inclination angle with respect to the top plate portion that progressively increases downwardly from an upper end of the main portion (by virtue of curved sections 114 in Figure 9), a tangential direction at each upper end of the respective outer edges of the upper knurl projection portions being substantially parallel to the top plate portion (knurl portions 112 are substantially parallel with top plate portion 12 as seen in Figure 9), a tangential direction at each lower end of the respective outer edges of the upper knurl projection portions being substantially parallel to the main portion (lower portions 116 are substantially parallel with upper skirt portion 26 as seen in Figures 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 6, the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion has a smooth annular lower region (30), and the lower region is formed at a position lower than the side knurl (see 30 located below 34 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion has an annular recessed portion (18), the annular recessed portion being formed at a position including the upper end of the outer-circumferential surface (see Figure 5), the annular recessed portion extending in the circumferential direction of the main portion (see Figure 1), and the upper knurl projection portions protruding from an outer surface of the annular recessed portion (see 20 protruding from 18 in Figures 1 and 2 which extend from an inner surface of the recessed portion).
Regarding claim 8, each of the upper knurl projection portions is formed in a plate shape perpendicular to the circumferential direction (Examiner notes the knurls 20 are rounded and represent a portion of a plate in cross-section, as seen in Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, the side knurl includes a plurality of side knurl projection portions formed at intervals in the circumferential direction (see radially outward extension of 34 in Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,231,020 (Taber).
Regarding claim 10, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a height of each of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is 0.3 mm or more, and a width of each of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is from about 0.2 mm to about 1.5 mm.
However, Examiner notes the reference teaches that the side knurl projections (34) are seen in Figure 2 to have a measurable height (radial projection outward from the closure tube portion) and circumferential width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taber, forming the side knurl projection portions to a height of 0.3 mm or more, and a width of about 0.2 mm to about 1.5 mm, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A):
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that each pitch of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is from 0.5 to 3 mm.
Examiner notes the Specification defines the pitch as the circumferential distance between the apexes of two adjacent side knurl protection portions (pg. 8, lines 15-16). It is noted that Taber shows a circumferential spacing between side knurl projection portions (34) in each of Figure 1, 2, and 3. Thus, modifying the spacing can be seen as an obvious change in the location of the side knurl projection portions of the invention to circumferentially locate them relative to each other, in accordance with the claimed spacing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Taber, circumferentially spacing them relative to each other a distance from 0.5 to 3 mm, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 12, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a height of each of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is less than 0.5 mm, a width of each of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is from about 0.2 mm to about 1.5mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taber, forming the side knurl projection portions to a height less than 0.5 mm, and a width from about 0.2 mm to about 1.5 mm, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that each pitch of the plurality of side knurl projection portions is from 0.5 to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Taber, circumferentially spacing them relative to each other a distance from 0.5 to 3 mm, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 14, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a height of each of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is 0.3 mm or more, and a width of each of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is 0.1 mm or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taber, forming the side knurl projection portions to a height of 0.3 mm or more, and a width from about 0.1 mm or more, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a pitch of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is from 0.5 to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Taber, circumferentially spacing them relative to each other a distance from 0.5 to 3 mm, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 16, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a height of each of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is 0.8 mm or less, and a width of each of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is 0.1 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Taber, forming the side knurl projection portions to a height of 0.8 mm or less, and a width from about 0.1 mm or less, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Taber, as applied above, fails to teach that a pitch of the plurality of upper knurl projection portions is from 0.5 to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Taber, circumferentially spacing them relative to each other a distance from 0.5 to 3 mm, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 18-20 are allowed.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, Taber fails to teach that the outer-circumferential surface of the main portion has an annular recessed portion, the annular recessed portion being formed at a position including the upper end of the outer-circumferential surface, the annular recessed portion extending in the circumferential direction of the main portion, the upper knurl projection portions protruding from an inner surface of the annular recessed portion.
The closest reference the Examiner was able to locate was US 2015/0129534 (Falzoni) but the reference, while teaching a recessed region, fails to teach upper knurls and side knurls, instead combining these into integral knurls extending from the top to the bottom.
No motivation could be found to combine these references in order to arrive at the claimed invention without hindsight reasoning.
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 JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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 at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights