DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is written in response to application number 19/117,133 filed 04/08/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US 3,799,380).
Claims 1, 15. Hashimoto discloses a vessel cap 7 for use with a vessel 13 adapted to store foods or beverages, the vessel cap comprising a cap body configured for attachment to a neck of a vessel and a gasket 12 attached to the cap body configured for deformation and compression between the cap body and the vessel (col. 7, ll. 50-67; fig. 2), wherein the gasket is made of a seal material comprising at least 50 wt.% of a polyurethane elastomer (abstract; col. 2, ll. 10-47);
wherein the polyurethane elastomer is a reaction product of an isocyanate component and a curative component having a hydroxyl number (OH) (col. 8-10).
Hashimoto discloses a preferable hydroxyl number of less than 300 but discloses multiple groups where the hydroxyl number ranges from 37.4 to 420.75 as noted in the calculation below:
the OH value for a Polyol with a functionality of 3 and a molecular weight of 400 is (56100 X 3) / 400 = 420.75
the OH value for a Polyol with a functionality of 2 and a molecular weight of 3000 is (56100 X 2) / 3000 = 37.4
Claim 2. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, wherein the vessel cap is a lug screw cap, a Press-on Twist-Off® cap, a hooded lid, a crimp-on or single-use cap, or a metal cap that can be rolled on to the vessel (col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Claim 3. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, wherein the seal material is substantially free of components that are liquid at room temperature. (col. 3, ll. 3-25).
Claim 4. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, polyurethane elastomer gasket is substantially free of polyvinyl chloride (col. 1, ll. 22-32).
Claim 5. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, wherein the seal material has a Shore A hardness of from 50 to 95 (col. 2, ll. 10-25).
Claim 10. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, wherein the curative component comprises:
i. one or more isocyanate reactive compounds; and
ii. a catalyst (col. 5 – col. 6, ll. 1-20).
Claim 11. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 10, wherein the one or more isocyanate reactive compounds are hydroxyl-terminated isocyanate reactive compounds or amine-terminated isocyanate reactive compounds (col. 5, ll. 16-21).
Claims 12, 14. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 11, wherein the hydroxyl-terminated isocyanate reactive compounds are selected from the group consisting of polyether polyols, polyester polyols, polycaprolactone polyols, polycarbonate polyols, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene polyols, natural oil-based polyols, short chain glycols, and mixtures thereof (col. 5, ll. 16-21).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 3,799,380) in view of Moriga et al. (US 2002/0101043).
Claim 6. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 1, but fails to disclose specific isocyanate compositions. Moriga teaches a sealing gasket comprising a isocyanate wherein the isocyanate component comprises:
i. a polyisocyanate that is an aliphatic isocyanate or a cycloaliphatic isocyanate; and
ii. an isocyanate reactive component ([0016], [0029-0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gasket component of Hashimoto to include increase rubber characteristics over repeated use by the consumer as well as maintaining suitable sealing abilities.
Claim 7. Hashimoto-Moriga discloses the vessel cap of claim 6, wherein the polyisocyanate is selected from the group consisting of hexamethylene diisocyanate ("HDI") and isomers thereof, isophorone diisocyanate ("IPDI") and isomers thereof, norbornane diisocyanate ("NBDI") and isomers thereof, tetramethylxylylene diisocyanate ("TMXDI") and isomers thereof, and xylylene diisocyanate ("XDI") and isomers thereof, and mixtures thereof (Moriga; [0032]).
Claim 8. Hashimoto-Moriga discloses the vessel cap of claim 6, wherein the isocyanate reactive component is selected from the group consisting of polyether polyols, polyester polyols, polycaprolactone polyols, polycarbonate polyols, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene polyols, natural oil-based polyols, short chain glycols, and mixtures thereof (Hashimoto; col. 4, ll. 52-67).
Claim 9. Hashimoto-Moriga discloses the vessel cap of claim 6, wherein the isocyanate reactive component is a polyester polyol comprising:
i. an acid component comprising residues of at least one dicarboxyl monomer; and
ii. a diol component comprising residues of
(i) a 2,2,4,4-tetraalkyl-1,3-cyclobutanedidl (TACD); and
(ii) at least one diol or polyol other than TACD, wherein the polyester polyol has a hydroxyl functionality of from 2 to 3 (Moriga; [0009-0010]).
Claim 13. Hashimoto discloses the vessel cap of claim 10, but fails to disclose specifc gasket componets for the cap assembly. Moriga teaches wherein the one or more isocyanate reactive compound is 2,2,4,4-tetraalkyl-1,3-cyclobutanedio [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gasket component of Hashimoto to include increase rubber characteristics over repeated use by the consumer as well as maintaining suitable sealing abilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights