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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first engagement mechanism” in claim 1;
“a second engagement mechanism” in claim 1;
“coupling elements” in claim 9;
“coupling elements” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a direction transverse to the main axis” in lines 14-15. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “direction transverse to a main axis” recited in line 7, or something else. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the direction transverse to the main axis.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 5,005,718 to Buono (hereinafter, “Buono”).
Regarding claim 1, Buono discloses a tamper-evident closure (closure device 100, Figs. 10-12) for a container (bottle 118, Figs. 10-12) having an opening with a thread (threaded neck 16, see Figs. 1, 11), the closure (closure device 100) comprising: an outer cap (outer cap 114, Figs. 10-12) with a first sidewall (annotated Fig. 11 below) and a first top wall (top 108, Fig. 11); an inner cap (inner cap 112, Figs. 11-12) with a second sidewall (skirt 122, Fig. 11) and a second top wall (annotated Fig. 11), the inner cap (inner cap 112) comprising a cap thread (annotated Fig. 11) to cooperate with the container thread (threaded neck 16, see Fig. 11; col. 5, ll. 60-62), wherein the inner cap (inner cap 112) is coaxially nested in the outer cap (outer cap 114, see Figs. 10-12); a safety strip (strip 104, Figs. 10-11) between the outer cap (outer cap 114) and the inner cap (inner cap 112) to block at least one degree of freedom of relative movement of the outer and inner caps (strip 104 blocks axial movement, see col. 8, ll. 46-67), wherein the safety strip (strip 104) is integrally made with one cap among the outer and inner caps (strip 104 is integral with inner cap 112, see Fig. 11) and connected thereto by a frangible structure (weakened area 106, Figs. 10-11); a second engagement mechanism (teeth 134 and teeth 150, Fig. 11) between the outer cap (outer cap 114) and the inner cap (inner cap 112) to drive the outer and inner caps in unison (see col. 8, ll. 41-68) in a direction of unscrewing the cap thread (annotated Fig. 11) relative to the container thread (annotated Fig. 11) to remove the closure (closure device 100) from the container (bottle 118), wherein the second engagement mechanism (teeth 134 and teeth 150) is activatable when the safety strip has been removed (col. 8, ll. 41-68), by application on the outer cap (cap 114) of a rotational torque in the direction of unscrewing (see col. 8, ll. 41-68) and at least one additional force (axial force, see col. 8, ll. 41-68) for activating at least one degree of freedom of relative movement of the outer and inner caps originally blocked by the safety strip (axial force, see col. 8, ll. 41-68).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Buono Annotated Figure 11
The embodiment of Buono cited above does not expressly disclose a first engagement mechanism between the safety strip and the other cap among the outer and inner caps to drive the outer and inner caps in unison in a direction of screwing the cap thread onto the container thread to mount the closure on the container, wherein the first engagement mechanism is activatable without breaking the frangible structure, by application on the outer cap of a rotational torque in the direction of screwing. Buono does not describe how the closure is mounted onto the container in its discussion of the embodiment shown in Figures 10-12.
Buono teaches a different embodiment (Figs. 1-5) having a first engagement mechanism (notches 30 and projections 44, see Fig. 1) between a bottom edge of the inner and outer caps (inner cap 12 and outer cap 14, Fig. 1) to drive the inner and outer caps in unison in a direction of screwing the cap thread onto the container thread to mount the closure on the container (col. 5, ll. 47-59; col. 6, ll. 35-42). Buono teaches that this first engagement mechanism (notches 30 and projections 44) is activatable without breaking a frangible structure (tamper-evident portion 58, Fig. 1) by application on the outer cap of a rotational torque in the direction of screwing (see col. 5, ll. 47-59). Buono further teaches that the teachings of this embodiment can be combined with other tamper-evident features (col. 7, ll. 20-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tamper-evident closure of Buono Figures 10-12 to have a first engagement mechanism between the safety strip and the outer cap to drive the inner and outer caps in unison in a direction of screwing the cap thread onto the container thread as taught by Buono Figures 1-5 for the purpose of mounting the inner and outer caps onto the container together, as recognized by Buono (col. 5, ll. 47-59; col. 6, ll. 35-42).
Regarding claim 2, Buono further discloses the safety strip (strip 104) keeps, at least locally, facing walls of the outer and inner caps (top 108 and second top wall, annotated Fig. 11) at a first distance from each other (annotated Fig. 11), wherein the second engagement mechanism (teeth 134 and teeth 150) is activatable (col. 8, ll. 41-68), when the safety strip has been removed (col. 8, ll. 41-68), by application on the outer cap (outer cap 114) of a rotational torque in the direction of unscrewing (col. 8, ll. 41-68) and at least one additional force (axial force) to bring the facing walls of the outer and inner caps (top 108 and second top wall), at least locally, to a second distance (see Fig. 12) from each other less than the first distance (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Buono further discloses the inner cap (inner cap 112) is coaxially nested in the outer cap (outer cap 114) and shaped to allow a relative axial movement (see Figs. 11-12; col. 8, ll. 62-67) such that the first and second top walls (top 108 and second top wall in annotated Fig. 11) of the outer and inner caps (outer cap 114; inner cap 112) can be moved towards or away from each other (see Figs. 11-12) in a direction of a main axis of the closure (vertical direction in Figs. 10-12), wherein the safety strip (strip 104) keeps, at least locally, the first and second top walls (top 108 and second top wall in annotated Fig. 11) at a first axial distance from each other (see first distance in annotated Fig. 11), wherein the second engagement mechanism (teeth 134 and teeth 150) is activatable (col. 8, ll. 41-68), when the safety strip (strip 104) has been removed (col. 8, ll. 41-68), by application on the outer cap (outer cap 114) of a rotational torque in the direction of unscrewing (col. 8, ll. 41-68) and an additional force which is an axial force (col. 8, ll. 41-68) in the direction of the main axis (vertical direction in Figs. 1-12) to bring the first and second top walls (top 108 and second top wall in annotated Fig. 11), at least locally, to a second axial distance from each other (Fig. 12) less than the first axial distance (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Buono further discloses the safety strip (strip 104) is made of the same material as the cap (inner cap 112, see Fig. 11) to which it is connected by the frangible structure (weakened area 106).
Regarding claim 6, Buono further discloses the safety strip (strip 104) comprises an injection molded part (safety strip is made of plastic, col. 9, ll. 5-11; “injection molded” is a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113) made in one piece (see Fig. 11) with the frangible structure (weakened area 106) and the cap to which it is connected by the frangible structure (inner cap 112, see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Buono further discloses the safety strip (strip 104) comprises a grip tab (tab 102, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Buono further discloses the frangible structure (weakened area 106) comprises a continuous thinned portion (annotated Fig. 11; col. 8, ll. 54-59) between the safety strip (strip 104) and the cap to which it is connected by the frangible structure (inner cap 112, see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Buono as modified already includes the first engagement mechanism (notches 30 and projections 44, see Fig. 1) comprises coupling elements (notches 30, Fig. 1) on the safety strip (notches 30 at bottom edge of inner cap would be on the strip 104 as modified) which are complementary to coupling elements (projections 44, Fig. 1) of the other cap among the outer and inner caps (outer cap 114), wherein, when a rotational torque in the direction of screwing is applied on the outer cap (col. 5, ll. 47-59; col. 6, ll. 35-42), the coupling elements on the safety strip (notches 30 on strip 104 as modified) are in a locking arrangement with the coupling elements (projections 44) of the other cap (outer cap 114) so that the inner cap (inner cap 112) is rotated in unison with the outer cap in the direction of screwing (outer cap 114; see col. 5, ll. 47-59).
Regarding claim 14, Buono further discloses the inner cap (inner cap 112) defines a cavity (annotated Fig. 11) for receiving an active material (cavity is capable of receiving an active material) capable of regulating an atmosphere in a container equipped with the closure (cavity is capable of receiving an active material that is capable of regulating the atmosphere in bottle 118).
Regarding claim 15, Buono discloses a container (bottle 18, 118, Figs. 1, 10). Buono as modified above already includes the closure according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the closure (closure device 100) is fixedly screwed onto a thread of the container (annotated Fig. 11).
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buono as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. 3,888,375 to Gerk (hereinafter, “Gerk”).
Regarding claim 4, Buono further discloses the inner cap (inner cap 112) is coaxially nested in the outer cap (outer cap 114), wherein the safety strip (strip 104) keeps, at least locally, the first and second sidewalls (first sidewall in annotated Fig. 11 and skirt 122) at a first radial distance from each other (see Fig. 11).
Buono does not expressly disclose the inner cap and outer cap are shaped to allow a relative radial movement such that the first and second sidewalls of the outer and inner caps can be moved towards or away from each other in a direction transverse to a main axis of the closure, wherein the second engagement mechanism is activatable, when the safety strip has been removed, by application on the outer cap of a rotational torque in the direction of unscrewing and an additional force which is a radial force in a direction transverse to the main axis to bring the first and second sidewalls, at least locally, to a second radial distance from each other less than the first radial distance.
Gerk teaches a similar closure (closure unit 10, Figs. 1-4) for a container (container 24, Fig. 1) comprising an outer cap (outer cap 14, Figs. 1, 2, 4) with a first sidewall (skirt 46, Fig. 2) and a first top wall (top wall 44, Fig. 2) and an inner cap (inner cap 12, Figs. 1, 3, 4) with a second sidewall (skirt portion 18, Fig. 3) and a second top wall (top wall 16, Fig. 3). Gerk teaches the inner cap (inner cap 12) is coaxially nested in the outer cap (outer cap 14, see Fig. 4). Gerk teaches the inner cap (inner cap 12) comprises a cap thread to cooperate with a container thread (threaded portion 23, Fig. 4; col. 1, ll. 58-60). Gerk teaches an engagement mechanism (ribs 38, 52, Figs. 2-4) between the outer cap (outer cap 14) and the inner cap (inner cap 12) to drive the outer and inner caps in unison in a direction of unscrewing the cap thread relative to the container thread to remove the closure from the container (col. 3, ll. 11-52). Gerk teaches that the inner and outer caps (inner cap 12, outer cap 14) are shaped to allow a relative radial movement (portions 48 deflect radially, see Figs. 1-2; col. 3, ll. 11-52) such that the first and second sidewalls can be moved towards or away from each other in a direction transverse to a main axis (portions 48 of skirt 46 move radially toward skirt portion 18). Gerk teaches that the engagement mechanism (ribs 38, 52) is activatable by application on the outer cap (outer cap 14) of a rotational torque in the direction of unscrewing (col. 3, ll. 11-52) and an additional force which is a radial force in a direction transverse to the main axis (radial pressure is transverse to vertical axis of the closure) to bring the first and second sidewalls to a second radial distance from each other less than the first radial distance (col. 3, ll. 11-52). Gerk further teaches that this engagement mechanism that requires a force in a transverse direction provides a safety closure that cannot be removed by a child but is readily removable by a user, and which is economically molded and assembled (col. 1, ll. 22-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to move the second engagement mechanism to the first and second sidewalls such that the first and second sidewalls can move towards or away from each other in a transverse direction as taught by Gerk for the purpose of providing a safety closure that cannot be removed by a child but is readily removable by a user, and that is economically molded and assembled, as recognized by Gerk (col. 1, ll. 22-28). Additionally, and in the alternative, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to move the second engagement mechanism to the first and second sidewalls such that the first and second sidewalls can move towards or away from each other in a transverse direction as taught by Gerk, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one known child-proof arrangement for another that is known in the art for this intended use and would produce only the predictable results of forming a child-resistant closure (MPEP 2143(I)(B); see also Applicant’s Specification at p. 18, line 30 to p. 19, line 3, noting that “the invention may be implemented with any type of second engagement mechanism, e.g., a ‘push-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism, a ‘squeeze-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism, a ‘push-and-squeeze-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism”).
Regarding claim 9, Buono does not expressly disclose the second engagement mechanism comprises coupling elements which, when the safety strip has been removed, are brought in mutual engagement under the effect of the at least one additional force against an elastic action of at least one elastic element of the closure, in such a way that the coupling elements of the second engagement mechanism are disengaged when the at least one additional force is released.
Gerk teaches a similar closure (closure unit 10, Figs. 1-4) for a container (container 24, Fig. 1) comprising an outer cap (outer cap 14, Figs. 1, 2, 4) with a first sidewall (skirt 46, Fig. 2) and a first top wall (top wall 44, Fig. 2) and an inner cap (inner cap 12, Figs. 1, 3, 4) with a second sidewall (skirt portion 18, Fig. 3) and a second top wall (top wall 16, Fig. 3). Gerk teaches the inner cap (inner cap 12) is coaxially nested in the outer cap (outer cap 14, see Fig. 4). Gerk teaches the inner cap (inner cap 12) comprises a cap thread to cooperate with a container thread (threaded portion 23, Fig. 4; col. 1, ll. 58-60). Gerk teaches an engagement mechanism (ribs 38, 52, Figs. 2-4) between the outer cap (outer cap 14) and the inner cap (inner cap 12) to drive the outer and inner caps in unison in a direction of unscrewing the cap thread relative to the container thread to remove the closure from the container (col. 3, ll. 11-52). Gerk teaches the engagement mechanism comprises coupling elements (ribs 38, 52). Gerk teaches that the coupling elements (ribs 38, 52) are brough in mutual engagement (col. 3, ll. 11-52) under the effect of at least one additional force against an elastic action (col. 3, ll. 11-52) of an elastic element (compressible skirt portions 48, Figs. 1-2) in such a way that the coupling elements (ribs 38, 52) of the engagement mechanism are disengaged with the additional force is released (col. 3, ll. 11-52). Gerk further teaches that this engagement mechanism having an elastic element to engage and disengage the coupling elements provides a safety closure that cannot be removed by a child but is readily removable by a user, and which is economically molded and assembled (col. 1, ll. 22-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to move the second engagement mechanism to the first and second sidewalls such that the coupling elements are brought into under the effect of an elastic element of the closure as taught by Gerk for the purpose of providing a safety closure that cannot be removed by a child but is readily removable by a user, and that is economically molded and assembled, as recognized by Gerk (col. 1, ll. 22-28). Additionally, and in the alternative, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to move the second engagement mechanism to the first and second sidewalls such that the coupling elements are brought into under the effect of an elastic element of the closure as taught by Gerk, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one known child-proof arrangement for another that is known in the art for this intended use and would produce only the predictable results of forming a child-resistant closure (MPEP 2143(I)(B); see also Applicant’s Specification at p. 18, line 30 to p. 19, line 3, noting that “the invention may be implemented with any type of second engagement mechanism, e.g., a ‘push-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism, a ‘squeeze-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism, a ‘push-and-squeeze-and-turn’ child-resistant mechanism”).
Regarding claim 10, Buono as modified by Gerk already includes the outer cap (Buono, outer cap 114; Gerk, outer cap 14) is elastically deformable (Gerk, compressible skirt portions 48), the coupling elements of the second engagement mechanism (Gerk, ribs 38, 52) being brought in mutual engagement by reversible elastic deformation of the outer cap (col. 3, ll. 11-52).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buono as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. 2020/0255206 to Freedman et al. (hereinafter, “Freedman”).
Regarding claim 11, Buono further discloses the inner cap (inner cap 112) comprises a sealing member (annotated Fig. 11) between the inner cap (inner cap 112) and the container opening (see Fig. 11), wherein the sealing member (annotated Fig. 11) comprises a flat sealing surface (annotated Fig. 11) forming an inner surface (see annotated Fig. 11) of the inner cap (inner cap 112) positioned transversally to a main axis of the closure (flat sealing surface extends transverse to the vertical direction in Fig. 11) to provide a seal (see Fig. 11) between the inner cap (annotated Fig. 112) and an upper surface of the container opening (annotated Fig. 11).
Buono does not expressly disclose the sealing member provides a moisture-tight seal.
Freedman teaches a closure for a container, where the closure includes a sealing member between the cap and the container opening (seal 52, Fig. 2). Freedman teaches that the sealing member is formed from a thermoplastic elastomer having a Shore hardness of 20 to 50 (paras. [0051], [0095]). Freedman teaches that thermoplastic elastomer provides a moisture-tight seal (paras. [0050], [0052]). Freedman teaches that a moisture-tight seal prevents moisture from entering the container and adversely affecting the contents or reducing shelf life (para. [0004], [0011]). Freedman teaches that thermoplastic elastomer is a soft, resilient, injection moldable material appropriate for creating a compression seal (para. [0051]). Freedman further teaches that TPE is capable of repeated use for opening and closing the container (para. [0051]). Freedman further teaches that the shore hardness being between 20 and 50 creates lower resistance to flow during molding, enabling a thinner cross section, and requires less compression force to seal (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to make the seal a moisture-tight seal made from TPE having a shore hardness between 20 and 50 as taught by Freedman for the purpose of preventing moisture from adversely impacting container contents, providing a seal that is capable of repeated use, enables a thinner cross section, and requires less compression force to seal, as taught by Freedman (paras. [0004], [0011], [0051], [0095]). Additionally, and in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure of Buono to make the seal a moisture-tight seal made from TPE having a shore hardness between 20 and 50 because Freedman teaches that TPE is a suitable material and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, Buono as modified by Freedman already includes the sealing member comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) having a Shore A hardness of between 30 and 70 (Freedman, paras. [0051], [0095]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. 6,332,550 to Bennett et al. discloses a closure comprising inner and outer caps with an engagement mechanism therebetween, and a safety strip integrally made with one cap (see Figs. 1-15).
U.S. Pat. 4,522,307 to Steiner discloses a closure comprising inner and outer caps to form a child-resistant closure and a safety strip integrally made with one of the caps (see Figs. 1-22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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, 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3733