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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 9-28 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are canceled.
Claim 16 is currently amended.
Claims 21-28 are newly added.
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.
Claim(s) 9-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendel (US 4461394) in view of Edie (US 20130319968).
Regarding claim 9, Sendel discloses, A closure (2) comprising: a first closure portion including: a top wall portion (6);an annular skirt portion (10) depending from the top wall portion, the annular skirt portion including an internal thread (See annotated fig. below) formation for mating engagement with an external thread formation of a container (Fig. 2) , the thread formation being a helical formation, a plurality of alternating bumps (18) and valleys (16), the width of the plurality of bumps and the plurality of valleys being measured in a direction perpendicular to the top wall portion.
Sendel does not disclose, the thread formation is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments, a second closure portion including: a tamper-evident band depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection.
Edie discloses a cap (10) the thread formation (24) being a helical formation that is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments, a second closure portion including: a tamper-evident band (32) depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection (para 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have thread formation is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments, a second closure portion including: a tamper-evident band depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection as taught by Edie for the purpose of “facilitates venting of gas” (para 25) and to prevent unauthorized access to the package.
As a result of medication, Sendel-Edie would have individual segments including a plurality of alternating bumps and valleys
Sendel does not appear to disclose, each of the plurality of bumps having a greater width than the plurality of valleys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have each of the plurality of bumps having a greater width than the plurality of valleys motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Sendel as modified discloses individual segment including bumps but does not disclose, the individual segments includes at least three bumps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have the individual segments includes at least three bumps as it is considered a matter of design choice motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. By changing the size of segment, one of ordinary skill in the art can control how many bumps can be incorporated into each segment, including three bumps as claimed. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 11-12, Sendel does not appear to disclose, the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 0.03 to about 0.11 inch and wherein the width of the plurality of valleys is from about 0.01 to about 0.05 inch and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 0.05 to about 0.11 inch and wherein the width of the plurality of valleys is from about 0.02 to about 0.04 inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have width of the plurality of bumps is from about 0.03 to about 0.11 inch and wherein the width of the plurality of valleys is from about 0.01 to about 0.05 inch and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 0.05 to about 0.11 inch and wherein the width of the plurality of valleys is from about 0.02 to about 0.04 inch, motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13-15, Sendel does not appear to disclose the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 1.5 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 2 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys or the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 3 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have width of the plurality of bumps is from about 1.5 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 2 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys or the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 3 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys., motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Sendel discloses, A package comprising: a container (4) having a neck portion (20) defining an opening (Claim 1) , the container having an external thread formation (22) on the neck portion; and a closure being configured for fitment to the neck portion of the container for closing the opening, the closure including a first closure portion, the first closure portion including a top wall portion (6) and an annular skirt portion (10), the annular skirt portion depending from the top wall portion, the annular skirt portion including an internal thread formation for mating engagement with an external thread formation of a container, the thread formation being a helical formation with a plurality of alternating bumps (18) and valleys (16), the width of the plurality of bumps and the plurality of valleys being measured in a direction perpendicular to the top wall portion,
Sendel does not disclose a second closure portion including: a tamper-evident band depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection and the thread formation is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments, each of the individual segments including the plurality of alternating bumps and valleys.
Edie disclose, a cap (10) the thread formation (24) being a helical formation that is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments, a second closure portion including: a tamper-evident band (32) depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection (para 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have the second closure portion including a tamper-evident band depending from and being partially detachably connected to the annular skirt portion by a frangible connection and the thread formation is discontinuous and forms a plurality of individual segments as taught by Edie to prevent unauthorized access to the package and for releasing gas (para 25).
As a result, Sendel as modified would have thread with individual segment wherein each of the segment includes plurality of alternative bumps and valleys.
Sendel does not appear to disclose, each of the plurality of bumps having a greater width than the plurality of valleys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have each of the plurality of bumps having a greater width than the plurality of valleys motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 18-20, Sendel does not appear to disclose the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 1.5 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 2 to about 3 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys or the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 3 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sendel to have width of the plurality of bumps is from about 1.5 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys and the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 2 to about 3 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys or the width of the plurality of bumps is from about 3 to about 4 times greater than the width of the plurality of valleys., motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-28 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ argument filed 07/01/2026 regarding claim 9, and 16 is fully considered but found not persuasive. The applicant argues that if the size of the ridge 16, and indentation 18 of prior art of Sendel are changed then they won’t not engage with ridge 27, and indentation 28 of the bottle neck. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Herein, the size of ridge 27, and 28 can be modified as needed to engage with 16, and 18. The prior art of Sendel does not teach against the size modification to make the valley have a width greater than valleys. Element 27, and 28 can me modified in size to accommodate modified ridge 16, and indentation 18.
The applicant further argues that it is unclear as to where temper-evident band 32 would be located in cap 2 of Sendel, to which the examiner replies that, Edie teaches the band to be attached to the bottom of the closure attached to the sidewall skirt, and when incorporated into Sendel, the band can be incorporated to the same place. The applicant argues that there would be interference of thread with the band to which the examiner replies that the band is designed to break off when twisted, so the band should not be interfering as argued by the applicant.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no room to have the tamper-evident band below, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Herein, a person of ordinary skill in the art can easily make room to incorporate the band as claimed.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights