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 § 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miceli (US 2004/0226907 – hereinafter Miceli ‘907) in view of Miceli (US 6161711 – hereinafter Miceli ‘711).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Miceli ‘907 discloses a selectively child-resistant cap assembly (10) and container (40) having a container body with a central longitudinal axis, a base and an open top as shown in Figures 4C-4D. The cap assembly (10) comprises a metal inner cap (30) configured to couple with the container body and a metal outer cap (20) coupled to the inner cap, wherein the inner cap is disposed at least partially within the outer cap. Miceli Paragraph 0043 states that the closure may be made of any suitable material such as metal.
Each of the inner and outer caps has a top with a top surface (24, 60) and a bottom surface and a shoulder (80, 235) with a top surface and a bottom surface. A first coupler (85) is coupled to the inner cap and a second coupler (85) coupled to the outer cap, the first and second couplers being configured to selectively engage one another. Miceli also discloses a third coupler (125) coupled to the outer cap, wherein at least a portion of the third coupler is disposed longitudinally between the top of the outer cap and the shoulder of the outer cap.
The cap assembly is configured to be selectively coupled with the container body in a first closure position wherein the inner cap is rotatably coupled with the container body and the top of the outer cap is disposed upwardly and wherein the cap assembly is configured to be selectively coupled with the container body in a second closure position where the third coupler is threadably coupled onto the container (Paragraph 0037).
Miceli ‘907 does not disclose a radially inwardly protruding container lip and that the third coupler providing the non-childproof third coupler extends radially outwardly from an exterior surface of the outer cap. Rather, Miceli ‘907 discloses that the outer cap may use any suitable engagement means that is complementary to the engaging means of the container and is preferably a single or double thread bead that engages with the container double thread bead (122).
Miceli ‘711 discloses a similar container and closure system having both a child-resistant and non-child resistant reversible configurations. The container (1) of Miceli ‘711 has in interior neck bead (7) and the cap comprises a non-childproof coupler in the form of a retaining bead (12) disposed longitudinally between the top and bottom of the cap. (Col. 6 Lines 11-41). The top of the cap is disposed within the container body and the third coupler is coupled with the container mouth. Miceli ‘907 and Miceli ‘711 are analogous inventions in the art of reversible child-resistant caps.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threaded attachment means of Miceli ‘907 with the retaining bead interference coupler of Miceli ‘711 in order to form a moisture-impeding seal in the Non-Child Resistant (NCR) configuration (Col. 6 Lines 37-41) that provides an audible ‘click’ when snapped into place (Col. 5 Lines 5-15).
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Miceli ‘907 discloses the first closure position is a child-resistant closure position and the second closure position is a non-child-resistant closure position.
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Miceli ‘711 discloses the cap assembly is configured to be press-fit coupled with the container body and the third coupler is configured to be coupled with the container lip via interference fit.
Regarding Claim 4, Miceli ‘711 discloses the third coupler has an outside diameter, the container lip has an inside diameter, and the outside diameter is greater than the inside diameter.
Regarding Claim 5, while Miceli ‘711 does not disclose the third coupler comprises a plurality of indentations stamped into a wall of the outer cap, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the singular circumferential bead may be modified to be a plurality of indentations as an obvious variation in the formation of a bead that would have no functional difference in the operation of the container to provide a non-child proof closure means.
Regarding Claim 6, Miceli ‘907 discloses the first and second couplers are disposed on the shoulders of the inner and outer caps.
Regarding Claim 9, Miceli ‘907 discloses outer cap has a bottom terminal end, a first height from the bottom terminal end to the top surface of the shoulder of the outer cap, and a second height from the top surface of the shoulder of the outer cap to the top surface of the top of the outer cap; and the first height is greater than the second height as shown in Figure 2C.
Regarding Claim 10, Miceli ‘907 discloses at least a portion of the top of the outer cap is configured to selectively move among first and second positions relative to the inner cap along a central longitudinal axis of the cap assembly, the first position being farther away from the top of the inner cap than the second position; the outer cap is configured to rotate relative to the inner cap when the top of the outer cap is in the first position; and wherein the first and second couplers are configured to engage one another when the top of the outer cap is in the second position for rotationally fixing the inner and outer caps relative to one another.
Regarding Claim 11, Miceli ‘907 discloses teeth that may be considered to define grooves having sides that extend upwardly or downwardly; and the other of the first and second couplers comprises at least one side that extends upwardly or downwardly for selectively engaging the one of the first and second couplers.
Regarding Claim 12, Miceli ‘907 discloses at least a portion of the inner cap is retained within the outer cap by a radially inwardly rolled lip (15, 17) of the outer cap.
Regarding Claim 13, Miceli ‘907 discloses the inner cap comprises a radially outwardly rolled lip (as shown on the outer wall of Figure 3A) and a height that is less than a height of the outer cap, and wherein the radially outwardly rolled lip of the inner cap is configured to at least selectively contact the radially inwardly rolled lip of the outer cap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 14-17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736