DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “elongated” used in the amended claims, does not appear in the specification before the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8 and 9 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 claim 8, the language “a radius that extends to an inner diameter” is unclear. The limitation implies that the radius equals the diameter. Where does the radius extend from? Where is the center point of the curve that forms the radius? Is the radius of the concavity continuous along the same curve or does the radius of the curve vary?
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-4, 8, 9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiedmer (DE 2641543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wiedmer discloses a threaded cap element, fig. 1,
the threaded cap element comprising a threaded portion with a thread at 9,
a central lid portion at 10 that is opposite a cap element open region via which the threaded cap element is configured to be applied to a container to close off a container opening, and
an elongated portion at 12 connected to the central lid portion and positioned between the threaded portion and the central lid portion, wherein as seen in fig. 1, the central lid portion has a concavity in a direction of the open region, and wherein the concavity extends starting from the connection between the central lid portion and the elongated portion towards the open region.
Wiedmer does not disclose the method of forming the cap.
In addition, the limitation “formed in a thermoforming process” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Regarding claim 2, Wiedmer discloses a part of the elongated portions in contact with an inner wall of the container opening when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening with the concavity extending from the part towards the open region, fig. 1, [0014] translation.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in fig. 1, Wiedmer discloses that the elongated portion has an outer diameter that corresponds to an inner diameter of an inner wall of the container opening when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening.
Regarding claim 4, Wiedmer discloses, fig. 1, the cap element includes an edge at 8a, at an end of the cap element opposite the open region, wherein the edge is connected to the threaded portion at its external portion and transitions into the elongated portion at an inner portion.
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 18, Wiedmer discloses, translation [0013-0014], that the concavity has a radius that extends to an inner diameter of an inner wall of the container opening and presses the elongated portion against the inner wall when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is only directed to the closure, the inner diameter of the inner wall of the container opening is not defined. The claimed radius is broad based on any container opening. Wiedmer further discloses that as seen in fig. 1 and described in para [0013-0014] of the translation, the rim area must be compressed inward to fit the narrow bottle. As such the radius of curvature of the concavity, and therefore the diameter is larger than the inner diameter of the container neck. However, Wiedmer does not disclose any proportions or dimensions or relationships between the dimensions of the container diameter or the closure concavity.
Because the concavity of Wiedmer has a radius, it meets the claimed limitation of claims 9 in that the radius of the concavity of the threaded cap element of Wiedmer can be used with a corresponding container having a diameter that is smaller than the radius such that the radius of the concavity is 1.2 to 1.8 times the inner diameter of a container opening.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above.
The references applied above do not teach the claimed thermoforming steps.
However, the limitation, “wherein the cap element is formed in a thermoforming process,” and the subsequent steps listed in claims 15 and 16 are considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Wiedmer discloses all the claimed structure and does not differentiate from the claimed structure.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 8, 10, 11, and 15-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandhaus (US 5474966).
Regarding claim 1, Sandhaus discloses, discloses a threaded cap element, fig. 1 and 2
the threaded cap element comprising a threaded portion with a thread at 20,
a central lid portion at 30 that is opposite a cap element open region via which the threaded cap element is configured to be applied to a container to close off a container opening, and
an elongated portion at (portion between 42 and 40, fig. 3 and 4) connected to the central lid portion and positioned between the threaded portion and the central lid portion, wherein as seen in fig. 3, the central lid portion has a concavity in a direction of the open region, and wherein the concavity extends starting from the connection between the central lid portion and the elongated portion towards the open region.
Sandhaus further discloses that the plastic cap is formed by injection molding, col. 4: 40-45, injection molding is a thermoforming process.
In addition, the limitation “formed in a thermoforming process” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Regarding claim 2, Sandhaus discloses, fig. 4, a part of the elongated portions in contact with an inner wall of the container opening when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening with the concavity extending from the part towards the open region.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in fig. 3, Sandhaus discloses that the elongated portion has an outer diameter that corresponds to an inner diameter of an inner wall of the container opening when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening.
Regarding claim 4, Sandhaus discloses, fig. 2, the cap element includes an edge at 22, at an end of the cap element opposite the open region, wherein the edge is connected to the threaded portion at its external portion and transitions into the elongated portion at an inner portion.
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 18, as seen in fig. 3 and 4, Sandhaus discloses that the concavity has a radius that extends to an inner diameter of an inner wall of the container opening and presses the elongated portion against the inner wall to seal the container when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening, and wherein the elongated portion is configured to press against the part due to pressure inside the container applied against the concavity when the threaded cap element closes off the container opening, col. 3: 35-55.
Regarding claim 10, Sandhaus discloses that the cap element includes a further portion with a toothing, 16, fig. 1 and 2, col. 4:44-47 “fluted outer surface 16.”
Regarding claim 11, as seen in fig. 3, of Sandhaus, an inner diameter of the toothing is greater than an inner diameter of the threaded portion because the inner diameter of the toothing is entirely exterior to the threaded portion and as such any given diameter of the toothing is greater than any diameter of the threaded portion at 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmer as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, the references applied above teach all of claim 4, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach the height of the elongated portion.
As seen in fig. 1 of Wiedmer, the elongated portion extends a significant amount into the neck of the container and is shown as having more than 1/3 of the height of the overall cap, which would be well over 2mm for a typical cap intended to be placed on bottles that are temporarily under internal pressure [0002] of Wiedmer.
However, if it is determined that fig. 1 of Wiedmer does not meet the limitation of the elongated portion having a height of 2mm or more starting from the edge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the height of the elongated portion to have a significant overlap with the inside of the container neck of 2 mm or more in order to provide adequate sealing between the inside of the container neck and the closure as desired by Wiedmer [0013-0014].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmer or Sandhaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of I.N.G.E. (FR 1153553) hereinafter ‘553.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach the claimed decorative element within a channel.
However, ‘553 teaches, fig. 3, a threaded cap element, wherein the cap element is formed in a thermoforming process (is plastic, [0003]), the threaded cap element comprising:
as seen in fig. 3, a threaded portion with a thread,
an elongated portion 16’, and
a central lid portion 8 that is opposite a cap element open region via which the threaded cap element is configured to be applied to a container to close off the container, wherein as seen in fig. 3, the central lid portion has a concavity in a direction of the open region, the concavity extends starting from the flange/elongated portion towards the open region.
‘553 further teaches wherein the elongated portion has a channel with a decorative element 15’ is inserted into the channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongated portion of Wiedmer or Sandhaus to have a channel and a decorative element in order to provide printed advertisement or instructions to a user or to prevent dirt from collecting within the concavity as per the teaching of ‘553, see translation provided in applicant’s IDS, 2nd page, para [0005], 2nd paragraph.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmer or Sandhaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurosawa et al (JP 2008265873 A).
Regarding claims 12-14, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a securing (tamper evident) portion. Although, Sandhaus does teach that the closure may be provided with a known tamper evident feature, col. 7:33-40.
Kurosawa is analogous art in regard to closures with a concave top surface and teaches a plastic threaded cap element, wherein the cap element is formed in a thermoforming process, the threaded cap element comprising:
a threaded portion (on the inner side of the cap, fig. 2, with a thread 25,
a flange/elongated portion at 21 (the part between concavity at 37b and skirt at 23), and
a central lid portion at 37b that is opposite a cap element open region via which the threaded cap element is configured to be applied to a container at 70 to close off the container, wherein the central lid portion has a concavity in a direction of the open region, fig. 2.
Kurosawa teaches that the cap element includes a securing portion with a plurality of hook-like elements at 30, fig. 4, and wherein the securing portion has a perforation between breakable bridges 27, fig. 4 such that an inner diameter of the securing portion 29 (the inside diameter of the wall of the securing portion) is greater than an inner diameter of the threaded portion, fig. 2 and 4 in order to provide tamper evidence, see translation, page 5, 2nd to last paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threaded cap element and corresponding container neck surrounding the open region of the container of either Wiedmer or Sandhaus to have a tamper evident securing portion in order to indicate to a user whether or not the container has been opened/tampered with as per the teaching of Kurosawa.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wiedmer or Sandhaus as applied to claim 1 above or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wiedmer or Sandhaus and further in view of Azuma (US 2025/0250066).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above.
The references applied above do not teach the claimed thermoforming steps.
However, the limitation, “wherein the cap element is formed in a thermoforming process,” and the subsequent steps listed in claims 15 and 16 are considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Sandhaus and Wiedmer individually disclose all the claimed structure and do not differentiate from the claimed structure.
Furthermore, Azuma is analogous art in regard to a threaded cap with a central concavity,
Azuma teaches a threaded cap element, wherein the cap element is formed in a thermoforming process [0032], the threaded cap element, reference fig. 3b, comprising:
a threaded portion with a thread 5,
a flange/elongated portion at 3, and
a central lid portion at 2 that is opposite a cap element open region via which the threaded cap element is configured to be applied to a container to close off the container, wherein the central lid portion has a concavity in a direction of the open region.
Azuma teaches the claimed method of manufacturing:
- providing a plastics film [0002];
- heating and shaping the plastics film (thermoforming) [0028]; and
demolding the shaped plastics film to form the cap element (removing the cap from the mold) [0029];
and further teaches that it is known to demold a cap using a spindle that is moved out of a shaped region of the plastics film by rotation for the demolding [0012].
Azuma further teaches that forming a cap from a resin sheet provides the advantage of using less material and reducing weight [0002] and [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing of Wiedmer or Sandhaus with the thermoforming processes taught by Azuma to arrive at the claimed structure to form the closures by a method that uses less material and/or reduces weight as per the teaching of Azuma.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combinations thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Speidel (DE 2601771 A1) is analogous art in regard to the claimed invention and includes an elongated part at 9 and a concave part at 10 on a threaded (at 2) closure, fig. 1.
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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights