DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
3. Claims 8, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8, 13, 16, and 19, from which claims 17, 18, and 20 depend, it is unclear how an inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion is in contact with the inner seal projection. Examiner notes the flange portion is described as element (29), the inner seal projection is described as element (12), and the upward-extension portion is described as element (28). Turning to Figure 3, it is seen that the inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion (29) is actually spaced from the inner seal projection (12). However, the inner seal projection is in contact with the inner-circumferential surface of the upward-extension portion (28). Accordingly, it is believed that an amendment to state the inner-circumferential surface of the upward-extension portion, and not the flange portion, is in contact with the inner seal projection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0186534 (Nilsson) in view of US 6,213,321 (Zumbuhl).
Regarding claim 1, Nilsson (embodiment of Figures 9-10) teaches a closure structure, comprising:
a cap (1) including a top plate portion (27 and 28; see annotated Figure 9:1 below) and a tube portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 below), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (shown e.g. in Figure 9:1), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (unlabeled upper portion of sidewall; see annotated Figure 9:1 below) and a tamper evidence ring portion (55; see Figures 10:1 and 10:2), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface being formed with a threaded portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 below), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (not explicitly taught); and
a spout (2) having a mouth portion to which the cap is attached (see Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the mouth portion including a tubular portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 below) and a flange portion (10 and 51), the tubular portion being formed with a male thread (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 10:1 below), the male thread being screwed into the threaded portion (see threaded connection in Figure 10:2), the flange portion extending radially outward from the tubular portion and in a direction generally perpendicular to a central axis (see 51 extending radially outwardly and generally perpendicular to the vertical axis in Figure 10:1), the flange portion including an outer-circumferential surface (see radially outer edge of 51), the outer-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion (see contact between 51 and 33 initiating in Figure 10:1 and completed in Figure 10:2), a diameter of the outer- circumferential surface of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the inner- circumferential surface of the main portion (see annotated Figure 9:1 below; alternatively, such can be inferred by the bending imparted by the cap surface 33 on the flange 51 comparing between Figures 9:1 and 9:2, or, 10:1 and 10:2).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
589
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nilsson fails to teach the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge.
Examiner notes that Nilsson contemplates fracturing, mentioning “breaking off of the anti-tamper-sealing” (see para. [0071]).
Zumbuhl, analogous to threaded tamper-evidencing closures, teaches connecting a tamper evident ring (13) to a threaded closure skirt (12) by breakable (frangible) bridges (40).
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 Zumbuhl, connecting the tamper evidence ring to the main portion by bridges as taught by Zumbuhl, motivated by the benefit of a frangible connection which fractures upon opening, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, the tubular portion includes a main tube portion and an upward-extension portion (each identified in annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1), the main tube portion being formed with the male thread, the male thread being screwed into the threaded portion (see Figure 10:2), the upward-extension portion being located higher than the main tube portion (see relative locations in the annotated Figure 10:1 above), and an outer diameter of the upward-extension portion being equal to or smaller than an inner diameter of the main tube portion (shown to be equal; see annotated Figure 10:1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
468
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, a bending rigidity of the tubular portion is lower than a bending rigidity of the tube portion (see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1; alternatively, such can be inferred by the bending imparted by the cap surface 33 on the flange 51 comparing between Figures 9:1 and 9:2, or, 10:1 and 10:2).
Regarding claim 4, Nilsson (embodiment of Figures 9-10) teaches a cap (1) including a top plate portion (27 and 28; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tube portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (shown in Figure 9:1), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (unlabeled upper portion of sidewall; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tamper evidence ring portion (55), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface being formed with a threaded portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (not explicitly taught); and
a spout (2) having a mouth portion to which the cap is attached, the mouth portion including a tubular portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a flange portion (10 and 51), the tubular portion being formed with a male thread (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1), the male thread being screwed into the threaded portion (see threaded connection in Figure 10:2), the flange portion extending radially outward from the tubular portion and in a direction generally perpendicular to a central axis (see 51 extending radially outwardly and generally perpendicular to the vertical axis in Figure 10:1), the flange portion including an outer-circumferential surface, the outer-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion (see contact between 51 and 33 initiating in Figure 10:1 and completed in Figure 10:2), a diameter of the outer- circumferential surface of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the inner- circumferential surface of the main portion (see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1; alternatively, such can be inferred by the bending imparted by the cap surface 33 on the flange 51 comparing between Figures 9:1 and 9:2, or, 10:1 and 10:2); and
a container to which the closure structure is attached (see para. [0002]).
Nilsson fails to teach the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge.
Examiner notes that Nilsson contemplates fracturing, mentioning “breaking off of the anti-tamper-sealing” (see para. [0071]).
Zumbuhl, analogous to threaded tamper-evidencing closures, teaches connecting a tamper evident ring (13) to a threaded closure skirt (12) by breakable (frangible) bridges (40).
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 Zumbuhl, connecting the tamper evidence ring to the main portion by bridges as taught by Zumbuhl, motivated by the benefit of a frangible connection which fractures upon opening, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 5, the tubular portion includes a main tube portion and an upward-extension portion, the main tube portion being formed with the male thread, the upward-extension portion being located higher than the main tube portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, a bending rigidity of the tubular portion is lower than a bending rigidity of the tube portion (Examiner notes the limitation is not read to comprise differences in hardness e.g. Shore A hardness, but instead is evidenced by the bending of flange 51 by cap inner surface 33 as seen in Figures 9:2 and 10:2, establishing the difference in bending rigidity based on the different thicknesses of the structures).
Regarding claim 7, the flange portion is in a direction perpendicular to a central axis (see Figures 9:1 and 10:1 showing flange 51 extending radially outwardly perpendicular to the central axis).
Regarding claim 8, the cap further an inner seal projection (24) projecting from an inner surface of the top plate portion, an inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner seal projection (see 24 contacting 10 in Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the inner surface of the top plate portion being in contact with an upper end of the flange portion (explicitly shown in Figures 9:2 and 10:2 whereby the upper surface of the flange 10 and 51 abuts the underside of the closure top plate).
Regarding claim 9, the tubular portion includes a first diameter-reducing portion, a main tube portion, a second diameter-reducing portion, and an upward extension portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Nilsson in view of Zumbuhl fails to teach that the first diameter-reducing portion is formed with a plurality of locking projection portions that projects radially outwardly from an outer-circumferential surface of the first diameter-reducing portion.
However, the reference teaches locking lip (56) at this location (see Figures 10:1 and 10:2; para. [0069]).
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 locking lip of Nilsson, forming it in separate parts as to create a plurality of locking elements, because such is a mere separation of a prior art element, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. See also MPEP 2144.04(V)(C): In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding claim 11, the cap comprises polyethylene or polypropylene (see HD polyethylene in para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, the flange portion is in a direction perpendicular to a central axis (see Figures 9:1 and 10:1 showing flange 51 extending radially outwardly perpendicular to the central axis).
Regarding claim 13, the cap further includes an inner seal projection (24) projecting from an inner surface of the top plate portion, an inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner seal projection (see 24 contacting 10 in Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the inner surface of the top plate portion being in contact with an upper end of the flange portion (explicitly shown in Figures 9:2 and 10:2 whereby the upper surface of the flange 10 and 51 abuts the underside of the closure top plate).
Regarding claim 14, the tubular portion includes a first diameter-reducing portion, a main tube portion, a second diameter-reducing portion, and an upward extension portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Nilsson in view of Zumbuhl fails to teach that the first diameter-reducing portion is formed with a plurality of locking projection portions that projects radially outwardly from an outer-circumferential surface of the first diameter-reducing portion.
However, the reference teaches locking lip (56) at this location (see Figures 10:1 and 10:2; para. [0069]).
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 locking lip of Nilsson, forming it in separate parts as to create a plurality of locking elements, because such is a mere separation of a prior art element, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. See also MPEP 2144.04(V)(C): In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding claim 16, Nilsson (embodiment of Figures 9-10) teaches a closure structure, comprising:
a cap (1) including a top plate portion (27 and 28; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tube portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (shown in Figure 9:1), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (unlabeled upper portion of sidewall; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tamper evidence ring portion (55; see Figures 10:1 and 10:2), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface being formed with a threaded portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (not explicitly taught); and
a spout (2) having a mouth portion to which the cap is attached (see Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the mouth portion including a tubular portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a flange portion (10 and 51), the tubular portion being formed with a male thread (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1), the male thread being screwed into the threaded portion (see threaded connection in Figure 10:2), the flange portion extending radially outward from the tubular portion (see 51 extending radially outwardly and generally perpendicular to the vertical axis in Figure 10:1), the flange portion including an outer-circumferential surface, the outer- circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion (see Figures 9:2 and 10:2 showing contact between cap inner surface 33 and flange outer circumference 51), a diameter of the outer-circumferential surface of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion (see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1; alternatively, such can be inferred by the bending imparted by the cap surface 33 on the flange 51 comparing between Figures 9:1 and 9:2, or, 10:1 and 10:2),
wherein the cap further includes an inner seal projection (24) projecting from an inner surface of the top plate portion, an inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner seal projection (see 24 contacting 10 in Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the inner surface of the top plate portion being in contact with an upper end of the flange portion (explicitly shown in Figures 9:2 and 10:2 whereby the upper surface of the flange 10 and 51 abuts the underside of the closure top plate),
wherein a bending rigidity of the tubular portion is lower than a bending rigidity of the tube portion (Examiner notes the limitation is not read to comprise differences in hardness e.g. Shore A hardness, but instead is evidenced by the bending of flange 51 by cap inner surface 33 as seen in Figures 9:2 and 10:2, establishing the difference in bending rigidity based on the different thicknesses of the structures).
Nilsson fails to teach the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge.
Examiner notes that Nilsson contemplates fracturing, mentioning “breaking off of the anti-tamper-sealing” (see para. [0071]).
Zumbuhl, analogous to threaded tamper-evidencing closures, teaches connecting a tamper evident ring (13) to a threaded closure skirt (12) by breakable (frangible) bridges (40).
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 Zumbuhl, connecting the tamper evidence ring to the main portion by bridges as taught by Zumbuhl, motivated by the benefit of a frangible connection which fractures upon opening, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 17, the tubular portion includes a main tube portion and an upward-extension portion, the main tube portion being formed with the male thread, the upward-extension portion being located higher than the main tube portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, the flange portion is in a direction generally perpendicular to a central axis (see Figures 9:1 and 10:1 showing flange 51 extending radially outwardly perpendicular to the central axis).
Regarding claim 19, Nilsson teaches a container with a closure structure, comprising:
a closure structure including a cap (1) and a spout (2), the cap including a top plate portion (27 and 28; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tube portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tube portion extending downward from a periphery of the top plate portion (shown e.g. in Figure 9:1), the tube portion being divided into a main portion (unlabeled upper portion of sidewall; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a tamper evidence ring portion (55; see Figures 10:1 and 10:2), the main portion including an inner-circumferential surface being formed with a threaded portion (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1), the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge (not explicitly taught), the spout having a mouth portion to which the cap is attached (see Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the mouth portion including a tubular portion (see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1) and a flange portion (10 and 51), the tubular portion being formed with a male thread (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 10:1 above with regard to claim 1), the male thread being screwed into the threaded portion (see threaded connection in Figure 10:2), the flange portion extending radially outward from the tubular portion (see 51 extending radially outwardly and generally perpendicular to the vertical axis in Figure 10:1), the flange portion including an outer-circumferential surface (see radially outer edge of 51), the outer-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion see contact between 51 and 33 initiating in Figure 10:1 and completed in Figure 10:2), a diameter of the outer-circumferential surface of the flange portion being larger than a diameter of the inner-circumferential surface of the main portion (see annotated Figure 9:1 above with regard to claim 1; alternatively, such can be inferred by the bending imparted by the cap surface 33 on the flange 51 comparing between Figures 9:1 and 9:2, or, 10:1 and 10:2); and
a container to which the closure structure is attached (see para. [0002]),
wherein the cap further includes an inner seal projection (24) projecting from an inner surface of the top plate portion, an inner-circumferential surface of the flange portion being in contact with the inner seal projection (see 24 contacting 10 in Figures 9:2 and 10:2), the inner surface of the top plate portion being in contact with an upper end of the flange portion (explicitly shown in Figures 9:2 and 10:2 whereby the upper surface of the flange 10 and 51 abuts the underside of the closure top plate),
wherein a bending rigidity of the tubular portion is lower than a bending rigidity of the tube portion (Examiner notes the limitation is not read to comprise differences in hardness e.g. Shore A hardness, but instead is evidenced by the bending of flange 51 by cap inner surface 33 as seen in Figures 9:2 and 10:2, establishing the difference in bending rigidity based on the different thicknesses of the structures).
Nilsson fails to teach the tamper evidence ring portion being connected to the main portion by a bridge.
Examiner notes that Nilsson contemplates fracturing, mentioning “breaking off of the anti-tamper-sealing” (see para. [0071]).
Zumbuhl, analogous to threaded tamper-evidencing closures, teaches connecting a tamper evident ring (13) to a threaded closure skirt (12) by breakable (frangible) bridges (40).
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 Zumbuhl, connecting the tamper evidence ring to the main portion by bridges as taught by Zumbuhl, motivated by the benefit of a frangible connection which fractures upon opening, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 20, the flange portion is in a direction perpendicular to a central axis (see Figures 9:1 and 10:1 showing flange 51 extending radially outwardly perpendicular to the central axis).
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