DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-4 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0152269 (Pucci) in view of US 5,735,419 (Ma).
Regarding claim 1, Pucci teaches a closure for a container with
- a base element (2) directly or indirectly attachable to a container,
- a flip-top lid (3) attached to said base element by a hinge (15) such that the fliptop lid can be moved between an opened and a closed position, and
- a transport lock element (16),
characterized in that
not taught),
wherein said transport lock element is, in its as-manufactured status or when said flip-top lid has not yet been opened by the user for the first time, frangibly connected to said flip-top lid by at least one frangible bridge (18), and
wherein said transport lock element has a first latch element (23) and said base element has a second latch element, said first latch element and said second latch element (36) are arranged such that said first latch element and said second latch element engage with each other when said flip-top lid is in its closed position and has not yet been opened by the user for the first time, so that said transport lock element is fixed to said base element,
wherein said transport lock element and said at least one frangible bridge (18) are arranged such that said at least one frangible bridge is broken when said flip-top lid is opened by the user for the first time, while said first latch element and said second latch element remain engaged with each other so that said transport lock element remains fixed to said base element (see breaking of bridges 18 in para. [0098] and the retention of all tamper evident elements so they are not dispersed into the environment in para. [0093]).
Pucci as applied above fails to teach said transport lock element being arranged such that it is covered from view when said flip-top lid is in its closed position.
Ma, analogous to tamper evident closures, teaches it is known to cover a connection from view by providing a retaining surface (52) behind a solid retainer (54).
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 second latch element of Pucci, forming it to be solid with a hooking element on a rear side to engage the first latch element, as taught by Ma, motivated by the simple subsitution of a suitable tamper evident latching means, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 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 2, said flip-top lid comprises a top cover element (11) and an outer side wall (7) extending therefrom.
Regarding claim 3, said transport lock element is frangibly connected to said outer side wall of said flip-top lid (see 18 connected to sidewall 7 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, said base element comprises a deck portion (6) and a skirt (4) extending therefrom, wherein said skirt comprises fastening means for attaching said closure to a neck of a container (thread 5).
Regarding claim 11, comprising two transport lock elements, arranged, in a circumferential direction, in opposite or essentially opposite positions (see location of unlabeled transport lock elements in Fig. 9, identifiable by presence of first latch elements 23).
Regarding claim 12, comprising two transport lock elements, each one arranged, in a circumferential direction, between a position where the hinge is located and a position opposite to the position where the hinge is located (clearly seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, wherein said first latch element and said second latch element are arranged such that, when being engaged with each other after a first closing of the flip-top lid, cannot change their relative position independent of whether the frangible bridge has been broken or not (the first and second latch elements do not have flexibility or space to change positions after initial closing).
Regarding claim 14, said closure comprises a support ramp (44), which is provided at said transport lock element and/or at a rim of said outer side wall of said flip-top lid (provided behind transport lock elements as seen in Fig. 9), said support ramp being positioned, in its as-manufactured status or when said flip-top lid has not yet been opened by the user for the first time, between said transport lock element and said rim of said outer side wall of said flip-top lid (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, said support ramp is provided at said transport lock element or preferably at each of said transport lock elements and, in a circumferential direction, preferably between two frangible bridges provided at one or preferably at each transport lock element (see location in Fig. 9 spanning lock elements, and providing inspection thereof due to inspection openings 36).
Regarding claim 16, said closure is attached to or attachable to the container or wherein said closure is integrally formed with the container or part of the container (not shown; disclosed in para. [0003] whereby the cap is attached to the container by threaded coupling).
3. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0152269 (Pucci) in view of US 5,735,419 (Ma) as applied above, and further in view of US 11,292,641 (Muhlemann).
Regarding claim 5, Pucci as applied above fails to teach the base element comprises at least one rim portion extending from said deck portion in a direction towards the flip-top lid, wherein said at least one rim portion extends, in a circumferential direction of the closure, at least over a part of the circumference of said deck portion.
Muhlemann, analogous to closures with tamper evident features, teaches it is known to provide rim portions (24) which extends circumferentially (e.g. where 24 points in Fig. 1) and which serve to support the closure on the base (23) in the closed position (col. 5, lines 39-43), and which also shows a likelihood of success when applied to Pucci in view of Ma, because it also teaches tamper evident features on opposing sides. While the features in Muhlemann are frandible and those in Pucci are not, a person of ordinary skill will recognize that the rim portions do not physically interfere with the tamper feature.
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 Pucci in view of Ma, providing a rim as taught by Muhlemann, motivated by the benefit of supporting the flip top cap in the closed position, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 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 6, said rim portion comprises two separate sections (see 24 in Muhlemann Fig. 1 noting the other section is not labeled but seen to the left of 21 in the figure), wherein said flip-top lid comprises an outer side wall, wherein said sections of said rim portion and said outer side wall are arranged such that said outer side wall is positioned radially inward from said sections of said rim portion when said flip-top lid is in its closed position (see Fig 3; Examiner notes the purpose of the rim is to support the closure, as described above in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, said sections of said rim portion are spaced from each other in a circumferential direction and having an opening between each other at a circumferential position being opposite to the position where the hinge is located (see unlabeled circumferential opening as a “U-shape” at 21 in Muhlemann Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 8-10 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.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, from which claims 9-10 depend, Pucci in view of Ma fails to teach said deck portion and/or at least one of said sections of said rim portion have a through hole, being arranged such that said transport lock element, being frangibly connected to said flip-top lid in its as manufactured status, can at least partly be inserted into or at least partly through said through hole when closing the flip-top lid for the first time after manufacturing. No such structure is taught in Pucci as modified by Ma.
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
