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 § 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 15 and 17-21 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 claims are considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 15 sets forth that the second leash is connected to a second end of the first hinge on line 9. It is unclear how the second is connected to a second end of the first hinge, since the claim previously sets forth that the first leash also is connected to a second end of the first hinge. It is also unclear how the second leash connects the second hinge to the cap body if it is connected to the first hinge not the second hinge.
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (JP 2008056246A) in view of Sung (U.S. 2020/0207525).
Regarding claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a closure device 10 for a container (figure 3), the container having a neck including an annular flange A (figure 3) along an exterior surface of the neck, said closure device 10 comprising a cap body at 10, a tamper evident (TE) band 20, the TE band 20 defined such that, when assembled onto the container, the TE band 20 is positioned below the annular flange A (figure 3), a first leash 40 and a second leash 40 connecting the cap body to the TE band 20 (figure 1), the first leash 40 and the second leash 40 originating from separate locations on the cap body and extending towards a pivot region (at lower end of 40) on the TE band 20 (figure 1), the pivot region defining a pivotal axis (figures 2b, 2c), a tongue 11 protruding from the cap body 10, and a ratchet at 20a provided on the TE band 20, wherein, when said cap body is moved from a closed configuration (figure 1b) relative to the neck to a fully open configuration (figure 3), an interaction of the tongue with a contact surface of the ratchet 20a maintains the cap body in the open configuration (figure 3).
Further regarding claim 1, Hagiwara discloses the claimed invention except for the cap body pivoting at least 120 degrees. Hagiwara does teach a cap body which pivots over 90 degrees, but Hagiwara does not disclose the exact angle in the open position. Sung teaches that it is known to form a plastic closure with the cap body pivoting over 120 degrees (see figure 7). 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 structure of Hagiwara with the cap body pivoting over 120 degrees, as taught by Sung, in order to move the cap body to an open position that does not obstruct the opening.
Regarding claim 2, the tongue 11 comprises a lip protruding (shown adjacent lead line 11a; figure 3) from a free end of the tongue (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, the lip at 11a is configured to interact with the contact surface 20a of the ratchet as the cap body is moved from the closed configuration to the fully open configuration (figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, the lip at 11a is configured to push the TE band 20 against a stepped support surface of the container (stepped surface below A; figure 3) as the cap body is moved from the closed configuration to the fully open configuration (radially inwardly and upwardly extending portion of 20 is pushed against the stepped support of the container).
Regarding claim 5, a first hinge connecting the first leash to the TE band and a second hinge connecting the second leash to the TE band (first and second hinges are the connection points between the leashes and the tamper band).
Regarding claim 6, a leash connector portion (considered to be the top surface of the tamper band 20) extending between the first hinge and the second hinge, the leash connector portion interconnecting the first leash and the second leash (via its connection with the first hinge and the second hinge).
Regarding claim 7, a cutout portion (shown in figure 1; 11 and 40 extend in the cutout) between a rim of the cap body, the first leash, the second leash, and the leash connector portion (upper surface of tamper band).
Regarding claim 8, the cutout portion (shown in figure 1) is configured to allow for movement of the cap body away from the leash connector portion (figure 2a) as the cap body is rotated about the pivotal axis.
Regarding claim 10, the first hinge (at connection between 40 and tamper band 20) is spaced circumferentially around the TE band from the second hinge (at connection between other element 40 and tamper band), and wherein the tongue and the ratchet are disposed between the first hinge and the second hinge (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, a cutout portion (shown in figure 1; 11 and 40 extend in the cutout) between the ratchet and the leash connector portion (figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, the ratchet 20a is generally wedge shaped, such that a free end of the ratchet is thinner than a connected end of the ratchet connected to the TE band opposite the free end (figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, the connected end of the ratchet is thicker than the TE band at the location of the lower hinge of 20.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (JP 2008056246A) in view of Sung (U.S. 2020/0207525), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Russell (U.S. 2007/0251911). The modified device of Hagiwara discloses the claimed invention except for the male and female molds. Russell teaches that it is known to form a plastic closure in male and female molds (see figures 12 and 13). 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 structure of Hagiwara made in male and female molds, as taught by Russell, in order to construct the closure using well known molding techniques.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hagiwara does not teach that the cap body is configured to pivot at least 120 degrees about the pivot axis between the closed configuration and the open configuration. The primary reference of Hagiwara teaches that the cap body extends beyond 90 degrees to the open position (figure 2). The secondary reference of Sung has been added to the rejection for the teaching for the teaching of providing cap body which extends at least 120 degrees to the open position. The motivation to provide a larger opening angle is to prevent the cap body from obstructing the container opening.
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. Avilés 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights