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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 10, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on March 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumford (GB 2,083,801) in view of Bashir et al. (WO 2021/048333A1) and Tsujiguchi et al. (U.S. 2014/0319093).
Regarding claim 1, Mumford teaches a molded closure 1 (shown in figure 1) configured to close a container at 20 (figure 4), the container includes a container neck having a flange 22, the molded closure 1 comprising a body at 1 formed of a plastic material, a top wall 2, a cylindrical skirt 4 depending from the top wall and an annular tamper evidence band 12 connected to the cylindrical skirt (at 16; figure 2) that is adapted to be reshaped upon irradiation by a laser without application of external forces (capable of reshaped upon irradiation by a laser, as it shrinks with heat), the annular tamper evidence band 12 being substantially free of residual hoop stress otherwise caused by stretching the annular tamper evidence band upon removing the molded closure from a mold (tamper band is not stretch molded), the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprising a substantially cylindrical mating surface (figure 1) configured to clear the flange 22 of the container neck when the molded closure is placed thereover but is configured to at least partially engage the flange if the molded closure is removed from the container neck after the substantially cylindrical mating surface is reshaped, wherein the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprises an annular tamper evidence band wall 12 having a wall thickness in a radial direction, the wall thickness being substantially constant (figure 1), and a wall length extending from an end at 14 connected to the cylindrical skirt to an open end of the annular tamper evidence band (lower end of 12).
Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the polyethylene terephthalate material and except for the outer diameter of the annular tamper evidence band being less than or equal to an outer diameter of the cylindrical skirt. Bashir et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure made of polyethylene terephthalate material (see page 10 lines 15-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford made of polyethylene terephthalate material, as taught by Bashir et al., in order to construct the closure with a well known durable material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Tsujiguchi et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure with a grip feature and reinforced bottom edge of cylindrical skirt such that the outer diameter of the annular tamper evidence band being less than or equal to an outer diameter of the cylindrical skirt (see figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Mumford with the grip and reinforced bottom edge of the cylindrical skirt such that the outer diameter of the annular tamper evidence band being less than or equal to an outer diameter of the cylindrical skirt, as taught by Tsujiguchi et al., in order to reinforce the skirt and provide a more secure gripping surface for the user.
Regarding claim 2, the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprises a free edge portion at the lower end of 12 configured to reshape into a radial lip that is configured to least partially engage the flange (figure 4) if the molded closure is removed from the container neck after the substantially cylindrical mating surface is reshaped (figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprises a substantially cylindrical inner surface devoid of engaging features (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the annular tamper evidence band 12 is frangibly connected to the cylindrical skirt by elements 16.
Regarding claim 5, the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprises one or more stiffened portions at 16a and one or more weakened portions at 16 adjacent 10.
Regarding claim 6, Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the wall thickness being between 10% and 25% of the wall length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford with the wall thickness being between 10% and 25% of the wall length, in order to save on material costs and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the annular tamper evidence band wall having a substantially constant wall thickness of between 0.3 mm and 0.8 mm, where the tamper evidence band wall is element 4a. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford with the annular tamper evidence band wall having a substantially constant wall thickness of between 0.3 mm and 0.8 mm, in order to save on material costs and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the wall thickness being between 12% and 23% of the wall length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford with the wall thickness being between 12% and 23% of the wall length, in order to save on material costs and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the wall thickness being between 8% and 21% of the wall length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford with the wall thickness being between 8% and 21% of the wall length, in order to save on material costs and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, the annular tamper evidence band 12 is connected to the cylindrical skirt by a membrane (which is considered the bridges at ).
Regarding claim 11, the membrane 16 has a radial wall thickness and the cylindrical skirt has a wall thickness, with the radial wall thickness of the membrane being less than the wall thickness of the annular tamper evidence band (at the lower and upper portions of 16 to enable breaking of the bridges) and less than the wall thickness of the cylindrical skirt (figure 2).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumford (GB 2,083,801) in view of Bashir et al. (WO 2021/048333A1) and Tsujiguchi et al. (U.S. 2014/0319093), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CA 3,023,423A1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified closure of Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the tether. Wang et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure with a tether (see element 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Mumford with a tether, as taught by Wang et al., in order to prevent loss of the closure.
Regarding claim 20, the annular tamper evidence band, as modified by Wang et al. above comprises a first annular portion (element 5 of Wang et al.) connected to the cylindrical skirt, wherein the tether is described at least partially by the first annular portion.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumford (GB 2,083,801) in view of Bashir et al. (WO 2021/048333A1) and Tsujiguchi et al. (U.S. 2014/0319093), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaines et al. (WO 2020/023402A1). The modified closure of Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the color changing indicator. Gaines et al. teaches that it is known to provide a tamper indicator that is a color changing indicator responsive to heat (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Mumford with the tamper band having a color changing indicator, as taught by Gaines et al., in order to indicate the condition of the container.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumford (GB 2,083,801) in view of Bashir et al. (WO 2021/048333A1), Tsujiguchi et al. (U.S. 2014/0319093)and Gaines et al. (WO 2020/023402A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Schmitz et al. (U.S. 2014/0251993). The modified closure of Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the reheat agent. Schmitz et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a reheat agent (see paragraph [0127]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Mumford with a reheat agent, as taught by Schmitz et al., in order to help maintain the plastic characteristics when heated.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumford (GB 2,083,801) in view of Bashir et al. (WO 2021/048333A1) and Aichinger (U.S. 4,033,472). Mumford teaches a molded closure 1 the molded closure configured to close a container 20, the container 20 including a container neck at 20 having a flange 22 (figure 4), the molded closure 1 comprising a body 1, the body 1 comprising a top wall 2, a cylindrical skirt 4 depending from the top wall (figure 1), and an annular tamper evidence band 12 connected to the cylindrical skirt that is adapted to be reshaped, the annular tamper evidence band 12 being substantially free of residual hoop stress otherwise caused by stretching the annular tamper evidence band upon removing the molded closure from a mold (not stretched for removal from mold), the annular tamper evidence band 12 comprising a substantially cylindrical mating surface configured to clear the flange of the container neck when the molded closure is placed thereover (figure 1) but is configured to at least partially engage the flange if the molded closure is removed from the container neck after the substantially cylindrical mating surface is reshaped (figure 4).
Mumford discloses the claimed invention except for the polyethylene terephthalate material and the laser. Bashir et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure made of polyethylene terephthalate material (see page 10 lines 15-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Mumford made of polyethylene terephthalate material, as taught by Bashir et al., in order to construct the closure with a well known durable material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Aichinger teaches that it is known to use a laser to heat a closure (see col. 3 lines 42-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified closure of Mumford with a laser, as taught by Aichinger, in order to use a known tool to apply the heat to the closure.
The radial lip is configured to be spaced from the flange until the molded closure is first removed from the container (the radial lip is capable of being spaced from an appropriately sized flange, as set forth in the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mumford does not teach the outer diameter of the annular tamper evidence band is less than or equal to an outer diameter of the cylindrical skirt. The secondary reference of Tsujiguchi et al. (U.S. 2014/0319093) has been added to the rejections above for the teaching of providing a closure with ribs on the outer surface of the skirt for gripping and for reinforcing the bottom edge. With this modification, the tamper band would have a diameter less than the diameter of the outer surface of the cylindrical skirt, as shown in figure 1 of Tsujiguchi et al.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant argues that Mumford does not teach that the radial lip is configured to be spaced from the flange until the molded closure is first removed from the container. It is the examiner’s position that the container is not an element of the claimed invention. Claim 23 is drawn to the combination of the closure and laser. The radial lip of Mumford can be spaced from a flange of a container until the molded closure is first removed from the container, when the container has an appropriately sized flange, which is located at an appropriate axial location on the neck to be spaced from the tamper band.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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 on 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights