DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/844,806, filed on June 21, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2-9 depend, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, the claim fails to further limit parent claim 7 because it limits a molding process distinct from that limited in claim 7. More specifically, claim 7 limits the contacting material (22) being applied in a coating process; claim 8 then limits the contacting material (22) being applied in a molding process.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,241,840 (Willis) in view of US 2008/0035600 (McGeough) and US 5,197,620 (Gregory).
Regarding claim 1, Willis teaches a closing cap (10) for a container (12) for receiving cosmetic creams, liquids or pasty substances (capable of use in the intended manner; no physical structure is read into the container or contents because they are limited to being outside of the scope of "a closing cap"), the closing cap being designed as a material hybrid and having a connective area (32) for establishing a connection realized as a screw connection, bayonet connection or the like between the closing cap and the container (screw threads 37 engage with container neck threads), the connective area being formed on an inner side of a base body made of metal, plastic or ceramics (outer cap 14 taught to be made of aluminum in col. 5, line 1), wherein the connective area has a plastic material as a contacting material in a portion for forming a physical contact between the closing cap and the container (inner cap 32 is taught to be formed of polypropylene in col. 4, line 68).
Willis fails to teach:
a) the remaining portions are made of the same material as the base body, and
b) the contacting material forms contacting protrusions on the inner side of the base body between thread turn segments formed on the inner side of the base body.
Regarding limitation (a), McGeough, analogous to threaded closures with sealing liners, teaches forming liner (40) of aluminum (para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Willis, forming the sealing liner of aluminum as taught by McGeough, motivated by the benefit of providing a barrier material to help preserve the container contents. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, "When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious". After such modification, the remaining portions of the plastic connective area of Willis would be formed of the same material - aluminum - as the base body of Willis.
Regarding limitation (b), Gregory, analogous to threaded plastic closures, teaches contacting protrusions (26) on the inner side of the base body between thread turn segments (23) formed on the inner side of the base body, which minimize application and removal torque and center the container relative to the closure (col. 2, lines 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contacting material of Willis, providing protrusions between thread turn segments as taught by Gregory, motivated by the benefit of minimizing application and removal torque and centering the container relative to the closure, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, the contacting material forms a cap seal between the base body and an opening edge of a container opening of the container (seal is formed by Willis liner 35, which is modified in view of McGeough above with respect to claim 1 to be formed of aluminum).
Regarding claim 4, the contacting protrusions are realized as a plurality of contacting material strands which extend in the axial direction within the connective area (see axial extent of 26 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Willis in view of McGeough and Gregory teaches a container for receiving cosmetic creams, liquids or pasty substances, the container comprising a closing cap according to claim 1 (the combined prior art container is capable of receiving creams, liquids, pastries, or anything else capable of being retained within a container).
8. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,241,840 (Willis) in view of US 2008/0035600 (McGeough) and US 5,197,620 (Gregory) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US 3,741,423 (Acton).
Regarding claim 7, Willis in view of McGeough and Gregory as applied above fails to teach a method for producing the closing cap according to claim 1, wherein the contacting material is applied to the surface of the inner side of the base body in a coating process.
Acton teaches it is known to apply a plastic material to form a threaded contacting material (32) within a metallic closure (31) in a coating process (coating the inside of the shell inner surface as seen in Figures 14 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the closure of Willis in view of McGeough and Gregory, forming the contacting material in a coating process as taught by Acton, motivated by the use of an alternative suitable manufacturing method, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 8, the contacting material is applied in a molding process (Examiner notes this claim is rejected above for being indefinite; Acton teaches molding in col. 4, line 41).
Regarding claim 9, Willis in view of McGeough, Gregory, and Acton fails to explicitly teach the contacting material is applied to the surface of the inner side of the base body in an injection molding process. However, the plastic material forming gasket (Acton 32) is applied into the cap, and such application is read as injection, and thus comprises an injection molding process, e.g. a molding process as taught by Acton, including the act of injecting the plastic material into the shell.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Willis in view of McGeough and Gregory fails to teach that the thread turn segments are made of the same material as the base body. Instead, Willis teaches inner cap (32), on which threads (37) are disposed, formed of plastic and outer cap (14) formed of aluminum. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the contacting material strands form a contacting material unit, a central part combining the individual contact strands serving for forming a cap seal. Instead, Gregory teaches material strands formed of plastic as part of the closure inner surface, and not as part of a separate cap seal.
No motivation could be found to modify the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733