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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "2" have both been used to designate deck.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both deck and snap cap.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 25B. 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms exist without being defined at their first instance. Appropriate correction is required. See at least PE, HDPE, LDPE.
The disclosure is objected to because reference characters "21" and "22" have all been used to designate elevated ring shaped zone.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “21” has been used to designate outer ring shaped zone, elevated ring shaped zone, and rings shaped zone.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “0,4” and “0,6” should be respectively corrected to “0.4” and “0.6”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of a snap cap only, for use with some receptacle, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a snap cap and a receptacle. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 1 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on line 2, requiring the deck cover an end of the receptacle in use). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the receptacle is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the receptacle are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 1 is required. Examiner suggest language such as “a deck capable of covering an end of the receptacle” or “a deck configured to cover an end of the receptacle” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the peripheral skirt" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the peripheral skirt is a newly recited structure or refers back to the circumferential skirt. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inner diameter" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inwardly facing surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the inwardly facing surface is a newly recited structure or refers back to the conical radially inward facing surface. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 15 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 15 is drawn to the sub-combination of a snap cap only, for use with some receptacle, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a snap cap and a receptacle. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 15 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-2, requiring the deck cover an end of the receptacle in use). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the receptacle is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the receptacle are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 15 is required. Examiner suggest language such as “a deck capable of covering an end of the receptacle” or “a deck configured to cover an end of the receptacle” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the inner diameter" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the inwardly facing surface" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the inwardly facing surface is a newly recited structure or refers back to the conical radially inward facing surface. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
The term “substantially” in claim 16is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Mate has been rendered indefinite by use of the term substantially.
Claim 16 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if an end of line 5 is a newly recited structure or refers back to an upper end of line 2. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) further in view of Takano (US 20240092541).
Claim 1: Elliot discloses a lid 10 (snap cap) for closing a receptacle, said lid 10 (snap cap) having a deck, which in use covers an end of the receptacle, and furthermore having a circumferential skirt extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the circumferential skirt having an inner side on which a locking means 18 (snap bead) is formed to attach the lid 10 (snap cap) to an end ridge of the receptacle, the deck having a peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) a ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein characterized in that at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral rim is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral rim is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) (see fig. 1 and annotated figure 2 below).
Elliot does not disclose wherein the peripheral rim flares radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt.
Takano teaches a lid 1 having a cover wall 2 and a lower wall 6 extending from the cover wall 2, wherein at an outer periphery of the cover wall 2 a standing part 4 and upper wall 5 are formed which protrude from the cover wall 2 and have a free end, wherein the standing part 4 and upper wall 5 flare radially outward with respect to the lower wall 6 and have a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peripheral rim to flare radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt and have a conical radially inward facing surface, as taught by Takano, in order to better guide the circumferential skirt into proper alignment with the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) upon stacking of lids 10 (snap caps).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the peripheral rim has a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4 ‘541).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the peripheral skirt has a recess at the free end, which recess has a smaller outer diameter than the inner diameter of the inwardly facing surface of the peripheral rim (see annotated fig. 2 above, fig. 3, and fig. 2 & 4 ‘541).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) has an outer diameter which is adapted to substantially mate with some bottom side of some receptacle thereby facilitating stacking of capped receptacles (see fig. 2).
Claim 7: The combination discloses the lid 10 (snap cap) being made of a plastic (thermoplastic material) (see C. 2 L. 49-52).
Claim 15: Elliot discloses a lid 10 (snap cap) for closing a receptacle, said lid 10 (snap cap) having a deck, which in use covers an end of the receptacle, and furthermore having a circumferential skirt extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the circumferential skirt having an inner side on which a locking means 18 (snap bead) is formed to attach the snap cap to an end ridge of the receptacle, the deck having a peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) a ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral rim is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral rim is elevated with respect to the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone), and wherein the peripheral skirt has a recess at the free end, which recess has a smaller outer diameter than the inner diameter of the inwardly facing surface of the peripheral rim (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 above).
Elliot does not disclose wherein the peripheral rim has a conical radially inward facing surface.
Takano teaches a lid 1 having a cover wall 2 and a lower wall 6 extending from the cover wall 2, wherein at an outer periphery of the cover wall 2 a standing part 4 and upper wall 5 are formed which protrude from the cover wall 2 and have a free end, wherein the standing part 4 and upper wall 5 flare radially outward with respect to the lower wall 6 and have a conical radially inward facing surface (see fig. 2 & 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the peripheral rim to flare radially outward with respect to the circumferential skirt and have a conical radially inward facing surface, as taught by Takano, in order to better guide the circumferential skirt into proper alignment with the peripherally continuous groove 22 (outer ring shaped zone) upon stacking of lids 10 (snap caps).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) and Takano (US 20240092541) further in view of Varadajaran (EP 1561696)
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the deck has said ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone), and has a depressed central area 15 (recessed central circular zone) (see fig. 2).
The combination does not disclose wherein the recessed central circular zone is on a level below the outer ring shaped zone.
Varadajaran teaches an overcap 12 having a top panel 30 having an outer ring shaped zone, an elevated ring shaped zone radially inward from the outer ring shaped zone, and a recessed central circular zone that is thinner than the outer ring shaped zone such that it is on a level below the outer ring shaped zone (see annotated fig. 2 below and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the depressed central area 15 (recessed central circular zone) to be thinner than and on a level below the ring shaped raised portion 17 (elevated ring shaped zone), as taught by Varadajaran, in order to reduce materials and associated costs.
PNG
media_image2.png
413
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 3480177) and Takano (US 20240092541) and further in view of Thivet (EP 1935800).
Claim 8: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the deck has a thickness within a range 0,4 mm - 0,6 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has an average thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the deck with a thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to reduce materials and associated costs and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 9: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the skirt has a thickness within a range 0,4 mm - 0,6 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has an average thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4 mm - 0.6 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the skirt with a thickness of 0.35 mm +/- 0.15 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to reduce materials and associated costs and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In. re Aller, 105 USPW 233.
Claim 10: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the snap cap has a diameter within a range of 80 mm - 140 mm.
Thivet teaches a capsule 1 having an upper plate 10 and a peripheral skirt 4, wherein the capsule 1 has a diameter of 100 mm (see fig. 1 & 7 and P. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the lid 10 (snap cap) with a diameter of 100 mm, as taught by Thivet, in order to close a like sized receptacle and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwin (US 3391850) further in view of McLaren (US 4407426).
Claim 16: Erwin discloses an assembly comprising: a container 1 (receptacle) having an upper end and a bottom flange 3 (bottom side); and a lid 5 (cap) for closing the container 1 (receptacle); said lid 5 (cap) having a deck, which in use covers an end of the container 1 (receptacle), and furthermore having a lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) extending from the deck and having a free end remote from the deck, the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) having an inner side to attach the snap cap to the upper end of the container 1 (receptacle), the deck having a peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone) which extends radially from an outer periphery of the deck and the deck having radially inward from the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone) a cylindrical portion 7 (elevated circular zone) which is elevated with respect to the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone), wherein at the outer periphery of the deck a peripheral outer groove wall 13 (peripheral rim) is formed which protrudes from the deck and which has a free end, wherein the free end of the peripheral outer groove wall 13 (peripheral rim) is elevated with respect to the peripheral groove 11 (outer ring shaped zone), and wherein the cylindrical portion 7 (elevated circular zone) has an outer diameter which is adapted to substantially mate with the bottom flange 3 (bottom side) of a further one of such a container 1 (receptacle) thereby facilitating stacking of such capped containers 1 (receptacles) (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 below).
Erwin does not disclose the receptacle having an upper end ridge near an upper end of the receptacle, the cap being a snap cap, or the inner side of the circumferential skirt having a snap bead formed to attach the snap cap to the upper end ridge of the receptacle.
McLaren teaches an assembly having a carton 12 having a rim 18 (upper end ridge) near an upper end of the carton 12 and a lid 10 having an annular skirt 16 with an inner side having an annular shoulder 32 (snap bead) formed to attach the lid 10 to the rim 18 (upper end ridge) of the carton 12 (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper end of the container 1 (receptacle) to have a rim 18 (upper end ridge) and the inner side of the lid flange 6 (circumferential skirt) to have an annular shoulder 32 (snap bead), as taught by McLaren, in order to more positively and securely restrain the lid 5 (snap cap) and container 1 (receptacle) together.
PNG
media_image3.png
558
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4762248, AT 381912, and US 2014030899 are considered pertinent to radially outwardly flaring peripheral rims, US 20100108705, US 476248, AT 381912, and US 2014030899 are considered pertinent to conical inwards surfaces of peripheral rims, and US 6478183 and EP 1395501 are considered pertinent to snap caps without peripheral rims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736