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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/10/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cork sheet glued on each of the end faces and on the lateral face must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-7 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 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.
The term “reduced in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The reduced diameter appears to be talking about a central opening in the feature (the diameter of 10b). However it is not clear or proper terminology. What is the reduction in diameter in reference to? What is the original state? The original state of the cork is without an opening, and in such a state, the without an exact point of reference. Claims 2-3 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
The term “having a diameter uniformly reduced by a thickness equal to twice a predetermined thickness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “having a diameter uniformly reduced by a thickness equal to twice a predetermined thickness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How is the diameter of the cap affected? The outer diameter is not reduced. Instead, an inner diameter is present due to the presence of a hole. There is no active reduction or enlargement of the feature. Further, in a state without a hole, the inner diameter does not exist. In a state with or without the hole, the outer diameter stays the same. Lastly, the term “predetermined thickness” is broad and as such can have a broad interpretation.
The term “a cork sheet glued on each of the end faces and on the lateral face ” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a cork sheet glued on each of the end faces and on the lateral face” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In latter claims, this feature is pluralized as “cork sheets”. Claim 1 discusses the cork sheet as an individual item. However, as described in the specification and later claims, there are different sheets attached to the lateral face and each end face. Later claims discuss different directional cuts of the lenticels relative to the sheets and the mating surfaces. Therefore, for the purposes of interpretation, the cork sheet actually refers to multiple different parts (relative to the mating surface).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cork sheets" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, it is introduced as a singular part.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cork sheets" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, it is introduced as a singular part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as being anticipated by Navarro (ES 2288387 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Navarro discloses a cap for plugging a bottle comprising two lids and a roll so as to be able to be forcibly inserted into the neck of the bottle, characterized in that it comprises:- a semi-finished cap with a reduced diameter formed by a cap (1 of Navarro) made of crushed cork glued under pressure with a polyurethane binder (agglomerated cork described in description [0008]), having a diameter uniformly reduced by a thickness equal to twice a predetermined thickness (broad interpretation) - the semi-finished cap with a reduced diameter (1) comprising two end faces (figure 2 of Navarro below) and a lateral face (figure 2 of Navarro below),- a cork sheet (2 and 3 of Navarro) glued on each of the end faces and on the lateral face of the semi-finished cap (1) with a reduced diameter.
Examiner Note: Original parenthesis are excluded for clarity of examiners reference. The parenthesis are replaced with the part identification of features on the new prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro (ES 2288387 A1) in view of Tourneix (EP 3974133 A1).
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the cork sheets glued on the lateral face of the cap are cut in cork according to a direction perpendicular to the lenticels. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely wine stoppers, Tourneix taught of a wine stoppers whose lateral face has a cork sheet with lenticels that area arranged parallel to the thickness of the lateral face (meaning it has had a perpendicular cut to the lenticels) in order to limit the variation of permeability to oxygen (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cork sheet of Navarro to include a perpendicular cut to the lenticels as taught by Tourneix in order to allow for a limit in variation of the permeability of oxygen
Examiner Note: the limitation “cut in cork according to a direction perpendicular to the lenticels” 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).) Further at some point in the manufacturing process, it is possible to cut cork in all directions.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 or 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the cork sheets glued on the end faces of the cap are cut in cork according to a direction parallel or perpendicular to the lenticels. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely wine stoppers, Tourneix taught of a wine stoppers whose end faces has a cork sheet with lenticels that area arranged perpendicular to the thickness of the lateral face (meaning it has had a parallel cut to the lenticels) in order to limit the variation of permeability to oxygen (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cork sheet of Navarro to include a parallel cut to the lenticels as taught by Tourneix in order to allow for a limit in variation of the permeability of oxygen
Examiner Note: the limitation “cut in cork according to a direction parallel or perpendicular to the lenticels” 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).) Further at some point in the manufacturing process, it is possible to cut cork in all directions.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP-3974133-A1 OR EP-0481155-A1 OR EP-0100302-A1 OR ES-2288387-A1 OR FR-1349033-A OR IT-VI20090190-A1 OR WO-2004048219-A1 OR EP-3974133-A1 OR US-20240001583-A1 OR US-20040074862-A1 OR US-20030102283-A1 OR FR-2832950-B1 OR FR-354991-A OR US-5439124-A OR US-0633094-A OR US-0604259-A OR US-0556095-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735