Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/040,346

Closure with Modified Retaining Band

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 29, 2025
Examiner
SMALLEY, JAMES N
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Silgan White Cap LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
916 granted / 1304 resolved
At TC average
Minimal -10% lift
Without
With
+-10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1340
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1304 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. 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. 2. Claims 13-16 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 4, the phrase “interface with container neck” requires the word “a” before “container neck”. Regarding claim 13, from which claims 14-16 depend, the phrase “none of the second inner surface” is indefinite because it is not clear if it implies no portion of a single, second inner surface, or not one of a plurality of second inner surfaces. Further regarding claim 13, the term “second inner surfaces” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis because the term is only first introduced in the singular. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. Claims 1, 2, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0129534 (Falzoni) in view of US 2006/0283828 (Falzoni ‘828). Regarding claim 1, Falzoni taches a closure comprising: a generally circular top panel (2) centered about a vertical axis and an outer periphery; a skirt (1) extending downward and away from the outer periphery of the top panel, the skirt comprising a first inner surface; a thread (unlabeled; clearly shown in Figure 5) formed about the first inner surface of the skirt, the thread configured to engage with a container neck (taught to be “unscrewed” to open, explicitly teaching the threaded connection; see para. [0042]); frangible connections that provide a visual indication, when broken, that the closure has been opened (not explicitly taught); and a tamper band that decouples from the skirt after the frangible connections are broken, the tamper band comprising: a sidewall (8) coupled to the frangible connections; a connection point (unlabeled connection between 8 and 9 located at the bottom of 8; see annotated Figure 5 below) extending from the sidewall (see Figure 5); a container engagement structure (9) pivotably coupled to the sidewall via the connection point (taught to be “associated with the lower edge of the security ring 8 in para. [0038]), the container engagement structure engaging with the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time to break the frangible connections (explicitly stated in para. [0042]), the container engagement structure extending from the connection point (see 91 extending from the unlabeled connection point in Figure 5), the container engagement structure comprising a first portion that defines an end surface (91) facing away from the connection point that engages against the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time (see Figure 5 showing end face 91 facing away from the connection point with tamper ring 8), and the container engagement structure further comprising a second portion (92) extending further from the connection point than the first portion (see Figure 5); and a plurality of apertures (C) extending through the container engagement structure, wherein none of the second portions that extend further from the connection point than the first portions are above any of the plurality of apertures (see Figure 5 showing none of the second portions 91 are disposed axially over the apertures C). Falzoni fails to teach frangible connections that provide a visual indication, when broken, that the closure has been opened. However, the reference mentions “security elements” (see end of para. [0002]) and that ring (8) is “breakably connected” to the lower edge (4) of the sidewall (1; see para. [0038]). Falzoni ‘828, analogous to tamper evident closures, teaches a plurality of breakable bridge elements (unlabeled) which are formed between cuts in the skirt (4) of a closure, defining the tamper evident ring (5), and which break upon opening of the closure (see para. [0076]). 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 closure of Falzoni, providing cuts to delineate the tamper evident ring which result in the formation of breakable bridges, as taught by Falzoni ‘828, motivated by the use of a suitable technique to provide tamper evidencing in molded closure caps, 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”. PNG media_image1.png 395 634 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, the container engagement structure comprising first sections in which the second portion extends a first distance from the connection point, and second sections in which the second portion extends a second distance from the connection point that is more than the first distance (Examiner notes Figure 5 shows the second portion 92 having a rounded front edge; this rounded edge results in portions that have different lengths, as seen in the annotated Figure 5 below). PNG media_image2.png 712 845 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, the second portion is closer to the sidewall of the tamper band than the first portion (see annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 2, showing where the second portion is measured, and that it is radially closer to the skirt than the first portion). Regarding claim 10, the second portion is configured to interface against the sidewall of the tamper band when the closure is being applied to a container (the second portion, having a radially outer edge that faces the radially inner facing surface of the tamper band, and having a flexible connection at the base thereof, is at the very least configured to interface with the sidewall, and would only require a sufficiently large container neck projection to provide the radially outward camming force to deflect it into contact with the tamper band inner surface). Regarding claim 11, the closure further comprising: a generally annular first plug (5) extending downwards from the lower surface of the top panel, the first plug being located radially inwards relative to the outer periphery of the top panel; and a generally annular second plug (unlabeled; see annotated Figure 5 below) extending downwards from the lower surface of the top panel, the second plug being located radially between the first plug and the outer periphery of the top panel, the first plug extending downward further than the second plug (clearly shown in Figure 5). PNG media_image3.png 478 703 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 12, the closure further comprising: a generally annular third plug (see annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 11) extending downwards from the lower surface of the top panel, the third plug being located radially between the second plug and the outer periphery of the top panel (see Figure 5), the third plug extending further than the second plug and the first plug extending further than the third plug (see Figure 5). Regarding claim 13, Falzoni teaches a closure comprising: a generally circular top panel (2) centered about a vertical axis and comprising an outer periphery; a skirt (1) extending downward and away from the outer periphery of the top panel, the skirt comprising a first inner surface; a thread (unlabeled; clearly shown in Figure 5) formed about the first inner surface of the skirt, the thread configured to engage with a container neck (taught to be “unscrewed” to open, explicitly teaching the threaded connection; see para. [0042]); frangible connections (see “security elements” at the end of para. [0002]; see ring 8 “breakably connected” to the lower edge 4 of the sidewall 1 in para. [0038]) that provide a visual indication, when broken, that the closure has been opened (these broken elements are well-known in the art, and would be visible, despite the fact that the ring 8 remaining connected to the container is the primary form of tamper indication); and a tamper band that decouples from the skirt after the frangible connections are broken, the tamper band comprising: a sidewall (8) coupled to the frangible connections; a connection point (unlabeled connection between 8 and 9 located at the bottom of 8; see annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1) extending from the sidewall; a container engagement structure (9) pivotably coupled to the sidewall via the connection point (taught to be “associated with the lower edge of the security ring 8 in para. [0038]), the container engagement structure engaging with the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time to break the frangible connections (explicitly stated in para. [0042]), the container engagement structure extending from the connection point (see 91 extending from the unlabeled connection point in Figure 5), the container engagement structure comprising a first portion that defines an end surface (91) facing away from the connection point that engages against the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time (see Figure 5 showing end face 91 facing away from the connection point with tamper ring 8), and the container engagement structure further comprising a second portion (92) defining a second inner surface that faces towards the vertical axis (92 has a side that faces radially inwardly towards the central axis as seen in Figure 5), wherein the second inner surfaces interface with container neck when the end surface engages against the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time (explicitly stated in para. [0042]); and a plurality of apertures (C) extending through the container engagement structure, wherein none of the second inner surface that interface with the container neck are above any of the plurality of apertures (see Figure 5 showing none of the second portions 91 are disposed axially over the apertures C). Regarding claim 14, the container engagement structure comprising first sections in which the second portion extends a first distance from the connection point, and second sections in which the second portion extends a second distance from the connection point that is more than the first distance (Examiner notes Figure 5 shows the second portion 92 having a rounded front edge; this rounded edge results in portions that have different lengths, as seen in the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 2). Regarding claim 16, the second portion is closer to the sidewall of the tamper band than the first portion (see 92 closer to the inner surface of ring 8 than 91 in Figure 5). Regarding claim 17, Falzoni teaches a closure comprising: a generally circular top panel (2) centered about a vertical axis and comprising an outer periphery; a skirt (1) extending downward and away from the outer periphery of the top panel, the skirt comprising a first inner surface; a thread (unlabeled; clearly shown in Figure 5) formed about the first inner surface of the skirt, the thread configured to engage with a container neck (taught to be “unscrewed” to open, explicitly teaching the threaded connection; see para. [0042]); frangible connections that provide a visual indication, when broken, that the closure has been opened (not explicitly taught); and a tamper band that decouples from the skirt after the frangible connections are broken, the tamper band comprising: a sidewall (8) coupled to the frangible connections; a connection point (unlabeled connection between 8 and 9 located at the bottom of 8; see annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1) extending from the sidewall; a container engagement structure (9) pivotably coupled to the sidewall via the connection point (taught to be “associated with the lower edge of the security ring 8 in para. [0038]), the container engagement structure engaging with the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time to break the frangible connections (explicitly stated in para. [0042]), the container engagement structure extending from the connection point (see 91 extending from the unlabeled connection point in Figure 5), the container engagement structure comprising a first portion that defines an end surface (91) facing away from the connection point that engages against the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time (see Figure 5 showing end face 91 facing away from the connection point with tamper ring 8), and the container engagement structure further comprising a second portion (92) extending further from the connection point than the first portion (see 92 extending farther from the connection point than 91 in Figure 5); and a plurality of apertures (C) extending through the container engagement structure, wherein none of the second portions that extend further from the connection point than the first portions are directly between any of the plurality of apertures and the top panel (see Figure 5 showing none of the second portions 91 are disposed axially over the apertures C). Regarding claim 18, the container engagement structure comprising first sections in which the second portion extends a first distance from the connection point, and second sections in which the second portion extends a second distance from the connection point that is more than the first distance (Examiner notes Figure 5 shows the second portion 92 having a rounded front edge; this rounded edge results in portions that have different lengths, as seen in the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 2). Regarding claim 20, the second portion is closer to the sidewall of the tamper band than the first portion (see annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 2, showing where the second portion is measured, and that it is radially closer to the skirt than the first portion). Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 3-8, 15, and 19 are 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. 6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, Falzoni in view of Falzoni ‘828 fails to teach that in the first sections, the first portion extends at least as far from the connection point as the second portion. Making reference to the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1, it is clear that at the first portion (the full extent of the arrow line used in the annotation) does not extend as far as the second portion. Regarding claim 4, Falzoni in view of Falzoni ‘828 fails to teach that the second sections of the second portion of the container engagement structure define a second inner surface that faces towards the vertical axis, and wherein the second inner surfaces interface with container neck when the end surface engages against the container neck when the closure is opened for the first time. Making reference to the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1, it is clear that the first section, being radially closer to the axis, is the portion which would interface with the container neck, with the second section facing upward and being radially farther from the neck. Regarding claim 5, from which claims 6-8 depend, Falzoni in view of Falzoni ‘828 fails to teach that one or more of the second sections define a V-shape peak comprising a first side that extends linearly both away from the vertical axis and circumferentially around the vertical axis, and a second side that extends linearly both away from the vertical axis and circumferentially around the vertical axis. No such V-shaped peaks are taught. Regarding claim 15, Falzoni in view of Falzoni ‘828 fails to teach that in the first sections, the first portion extends at least as far from the connection point as the second portion. Making reference to the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1, it is clear that at the first portion (the full extent of the arrow line used in the annotation) does not extend as far as the second portion. Regarding claim 19, Falzoni in view of Falzoni ‘828 fails to teach that in the first sections, the first portion extends at least as far from the connection point as the second portion. Making reference to the annotated Figure 5 above with regard to claim 1, it is clear that at the first portion (the full extent of the arrow line used in the annotation) does not extend as far as the second portion. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 29, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600532
CONTAINER FOR PACKING A FOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595095
CLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589922
CLOSING DEVICE FOR CONTAINERS AND ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A CONTAINER PROVIDED WITH SAID CLOSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589920
PORTABLE STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589916
BI-INJECTION MOLDED HOUSING OF A LOCKING CAP FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL VIAL, AND LOCKING CAP INCLUDING SUCH A HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (-10.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1304 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month