DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 21-40 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 21, from which the remaining claims depend, the limitation “a tab provided on the base body and being connected to the base body” is indefinite, because it is not clear what the distinction is between being provided on and being connected to something. Examiner notes the instant tab appears to be a portion the base body, delineated by a surrounding gap. Applicant is encouraged to amend this limitation in order to more clearly define how the tab comprises a portion of the base body.
Regarding claim 31, it is not clear what shape the “edged” shape comprises.
Regarding claim 35, the term “the flexible member” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 21-23, 30-32, 34-36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,954,042 (French).
Regarding claim 21, French teaches a child resistant cap adapted to securely close a container (110) having a mouth, a neck portion (the unlabeled neck on which thread 113 is disposed in Figure 2), a shoulder portion (read as the unlabeled horizontal portion extending outwardly from the bottom of the neck and joining to the main container body in Figure 2), thread (113) along the neck portion, and a transfer bead (115) on the neck portion near the shoulder portion (shoulder is located immediately below 115 in Figure 2), the child resistant cap comprising:
a roof (121) adapted to engage with the mouth of the container;
a base body (122) extends from peripheral of the roof and corresponds with the neck portion, and a distal portion opposite to the roof defines an opening end (open, bottom end of lid 120);
a tab (read as the portion of 122 located between gaps 126 and 127 in Figure 3) provided on the base body and being connected to the base body, the tab comprising a projecting member (129) adapted to operably engage with the thread of the container (mates with container neck thread 113); and
a protruded edge (128) disposed along the opening end of the cap, adapted to engage with the transfer bead (col. 4, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 22, the base body defines an opening, and the tab is disposed in the opening (the tab is disposed in an opening made between gaps 126 and 127 in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, the tab comprises a flexible member, wherein the tab is connected to the base body through the flexible member (Examiner notes the tab is inherently flexible as it is a cantilevered projection defined between gaps 126 and 127, and the closure is formed of plastic in col. 4, lines 55-66).
Regarding claim 30, the cap defines a slit along the distal end of the base body (see gaps 126 and 127 which extend to the distal end of the base body in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 31, the shape of the cross-section of the protruded edge is selected from the group consisting of round, edged, curved, straight and a combination thereof (Examiner notes this claim is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite; the protruded edge 128 appears to be either straight or edged, as it is pointy, as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 32, the base body is configured in a cylindrical shape, pleated cylindrical shape or polygonal cylindrical shape (base body 122 is cylindrical in shape as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 34, the cap is made of a polymer, plastic, combination thereof or a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (see various polymers listed in col. 4, lines 55-66).
Regarding claim 35, the flexible member defines a curvature in C-shaped or S-shaped configuration (the arc segment shape of the flexible member/tab is a C-shape, or a crescent shape, in is horizontal planar cross-section as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 36, the projecting member comprises one or more elongated-strip extension structures or one or more conical extension structures (see 128 as an elongated strip in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 39, the roof further comprises a plug member adapted to concentrically engage with the mouth of the container (unlabeled; clearly seen in Figures 4a-4b as a cylindrically shaped plug depending from the underside of 121 into the mouth of the container).
Regarding claim 40, for storing prescription drugs, over-the- counter medications, e-liquids, household chemicals, or hazardous substances in the container (Examiner notes the claim does not include any limitations narrowing the physical structure of the container, and that the container of French is capable of storing these items).
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. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,954,042 (French).
Regarding claim 26, French, as applied above, fails to teach that the tab is shaped in a triangular, circular, square, or hexagonal shape or a combination thereof and the opening has a corresponding shape thereto.
Examiner notes the shape is more akin to rectangular when viewed in Figure 6, describing the shape in its planar perspective and not in “3D”, in a manner similar to that used by Applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify French, forming the tab to a square shape, motivated by an obvious change in shape of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
8. Claims 33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,954,042 (French) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to claim 21, in view of US 4,752,014 (House).
Regarding claim 33, French as applied above fails to teach that the tab is provided with embossed bodies.
House, analogous to threaded child-resistant closures, teaches applying knurling to the sidewall (col. 6, lines 60-66), which is well-known to facilitate gripping, and which comprises embossments. Examiner notes the “tab” in French is actually a portion of the sidewall, and thus it would be obvious to apply knurling as taught by House, because this is the location a user could grip to unscrew the closure after disengaging the actual tabs (123).
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 sidewall of French, providing knurling as taught by House, motivated by the benefit of facilitating gripping and twisting of 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 37, French as applied above fails to teach that the cap is provided with one or more embossed patterns; one or more debossed patterns; or one or more combinations thereof, for providing information to a user.
House, analogous to threaded child-resistant closures, teaches applying knurling to the sidewall (col. 6, lines 60-66), which is well-known to facilitate gripping, and which comprises embossments. Examiner notes the “tab” in French is actually a portion of the sidewall, and thus it would be obvious to apply knurling as taught by House, because this is the location a user could grip to unscrew the closure after disengaging the actual tabs (123).
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 sidewall of French, providing knurling as taught by House, motivated by the benefit of facilitating gripping and twisting of 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”.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 24, 25, 27-29, and 38 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.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24, from which claim 25 depends, French fails to teach a bolting member, barrier wall corresponding to the bolding member, and the barrier wall defining a holding member, wherein the bolting member is adapted to detachably engage with the holding member.
Regarding claim 27, from which claims 28, 29, and 38 depend, French fails to teach a flexing arm structure connecting the roof and the base body, wherein, when the cap engages with the container, the flexing arm structure flexes and presses the roof against the mouth of the container.
No motivation could be found to modify French 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
Prosecution Insights