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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing on 10 April 2025.
Claims 2 – 18 are pending. Claim 1 is cancelled by applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last sentence in the abstract does not end with any punctuation (i.e., a period). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “part”, should read, “a part”.
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.
Claims 2 – 18 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “the application of additional external forces”, is indefinite because (1) the limitation lacks antecedent basis and (2) the limitation, due to the term, “additional”, which means “added, extra, or supplementary to what is already present”, implies there is a prior, unrecited application of at least one external force to the tamper evidence band. However, this prior application of at least one external force is not positively recited, only inferred, thus it is ambiguous whether this prior application of at least one external force is part of the invention. Please note, limitations are read in light of the specification and the specification does supports a prior application of at least one external force to the tamper evidence band but no further application of additional external forces to the tamper evidence band, as implied above, in the embodiment of figure 37 which uses a heated jet of air to apply heat and an external force “to cause a free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form a radial lip”. However, claims 11 and 12, which depend upon claim 2, describes applying heat via laser or microwave emitter which corresponds to the embodiments of figures 7 – 8 and figures 32 – 36, respectively, wherein there is no application of external forces to the tamper evidence band. Thus, the limitation is further ambiguous whether the limitation is meant to indicate an application of an external force without any other additional applications of external forces, as implied by the limitation and supported in some embodiments of the specification, or the limitation is meant to indicate without any application of external forces, as supported in other embodiments of the specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “an application of additional external forces”, and that the prior application of at least one external force is part of the invention - as implied and supported in some embodiments of the specification. Please note, since claims 3 – 18 depend upon claim 2, claims 3 – 18 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 15, and 18, the limitation, “heat”, in the phrase, “applying heat”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “heat”, to mean “the heat”. Please note, since claim 16 depends upon claim 15, claim 16 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the limitations, “applying the heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band comprises directing electromagnetic energy at the portion of the tamper evidence band with a microwave emitter”, and “applying the heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band comprises irradiating the portion of the tamper evidence band with a laser beam”, are indefinite because the limitations are read in light of the specification and claim 2, upon which claims 11 and 12 depend, recites “applying heat … without the application of additional external forces”, implying a prior application of at least one external force, but there are no disclosed embodiments in the specification that applies heat via a microwave emitter or a laser and have an application of at least one external force. Thus, the limitation is further ambiguous whether the limitation is meant to indicate an application of an external force without any other additional applications of external forces, as implied in claim 2 and supported in some embodiments of the specification, or the limitation is meant to indicate without any application of external forces, as supported in other embodiments of the specification. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 2, 5 – 12, 14 – 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aichinger (US 4 003 472 A) in view of Valyi (US 5 673 808 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Aichinger discloses a method of securing a closure on a container, the method comprising:
placing the closure (3, fig. 5) on a container neck (1, fig. 5) of the container; and
applying heat along a portion of a tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) of the closure with a heat source (12, fig. 5) to cause a free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form a radial lip without the application of additional external forces (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 describes hot air from a nozzle 12 applied to a lower part of a band 5 causing the lower part of the band 5 to be pressed in a shape-locking manner about a bead 4. Figures 2 and 4 show this lower part of the band 5 forming a radial lip when pressed in the shape-locking manner about a bead 4. Please note, after the application of hot air as an external force to cause a free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form a radial lip, no other application of additional external forces is given).
wherein the radial lip engages a flange (4, fig. 5) on the container neck at least when the closure is first removed from the container after applying the heat to the portion of the tamper evidence band (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 describes when the hot air is applied to a lower part of the band 5, the lower part of the band 5 is pressed in the shape-locking manner about a bead 4. Thus, this lower part of the band 5 engages the bead 4 upon the application of heat and would continue to engage the bead 4 when the closure is first removed from the container after applying the heat to this lower part of the tamper evidence band).
Aichinger does not explicitly disclose conveying the container along a conveying direction.
However, Valyi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches conveying the container (52, fig. 4) along a conveying direction (the conveying direction of a moving transfer belt 56, fig. 4).
Valyi is evidence that conveying the container along a conveying direction was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the method of Aichinger to include the step of conveying the container along a conveying direction, as taught by Valyi. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Aichinger to include the step of conveying the container along a conveying direction, as taught by Valyi, in order to transport large volumes of containers quickly and continuously reducing bottlenecks and maximizing throughput.
Regarding claim 5, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses causing the free edge (lower edge of the band 5, fig. 5) of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) to curl inwardly to form the radial lip permits rotation of the tamper evidence band relative to the container neck (1, fig. 5) (Figure 5 shows a cap 3 as a screw cap having an attached band 5 wherein when the screw cap is removed, the screw cap and the attached band 5 rotate relative to the container neck 1).
Regarding claim 6, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses causing the free edge (lower edge of the band 5, fig. 5) of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) to curl inwardly comprises causing a bottom edge of the radial lip to project towards the container neck (1, fig. 5) (As shown in figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses causing the free edge (lower edge of the band 5, fig. 5) of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) to curl inwardly comprises causing the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) to form a concave profile with a concavity of the concave profile facing the container neck (1, fig. 5) (As shown in figures 2 and 4) (Also see Col. 2, ll. 35 – 39).
Regarding claim 8, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses applying heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) comprises directing the heat at the portion of the tamper evidence band without directing the heat at other portions of the closure (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 and figure 5 describes and shows the hot air being applied to only the lower part of the band 5).
Regarding claim 9, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 8.
Aichinger discloses applying heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) comprises directing the heat at a lower portion of the tamper evidence band (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 describes the hot air being applied to the lower part of the band 5).
Regarding claim 10, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses comprising applying the heat along part of a circumference of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 describes the hot air being applied to the lower part of the band 5 wherein figure 5 shows this lower part of the band 5 being part of the circumference of the band 5).
Regarding claim 11, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses applying the heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) comprises directing electromagnetic energy at the portion of the tamper evidence band with an infrared emitter (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 describes the hot air being applied to the lower part of the band 5. Please note, a jet of heated air is considered an infrared (IR) emitter, because all matter above absolute zero emits thermal radiation, and for most practical purposes, the dominant portion of that radiation from air at typical heating temperatures is in the infrared range).
Regarding claim 12, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses applying the heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) comprises irradiating the portion of the tamper evidence band with a laser beam (Col. 3, ll. 34 – 44 describes an embodiment using a laser instead of hot air and a tool 15 to apply an external force to cause a free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form a radial lip).
Regarding claim 14, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Aichinger discloses rotating the closure and the container about an internal axis (Aichinger – col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 9 and figure 5 describes and shows rotating the container 11 and the cap 3 having the band 5 about the longitudinal axis of the container 11 so that the nozzle 12 applies heat along the circumference of the band 5) as the closure and the container are conveyed along the conveying direction (Valyi – Figure 1 shows the container 1 and lid 3 conveyed along the conveying direction as indicated by the arrows).
Regarding claim 15, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Aichinger discloses applying heat along the portion of the tamper evidence band (5, fig. 5) comprises creating a predetermined temperature differential between an outer surface and an inner surface of the portion of the tamper evidence band (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 and figure 5 describes and shows the hot air being applied to an outer surface of the lower part of the band 5 thus Aichinger would inherently create a predetermined temperature differential between the outer surface of the lower part of the band 5 and the inner surface of the lower part of the band 5).
Regarding claim 16, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
Aichinger discloses creating the predetermined temperature differential comprises heating the outer surface to a higher temperature than the inner surface (Col. 4, ll. 58 – 62 and figure 5 describes and shows the hot air being applied to an outer surface of the lower part of the band 5).
Regarding claim 18, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Aichinger discloses the closure is a plurality of closures and the container is a plurality of containers (Valyi – figure 4 discloses the moving transfer belt 56 transporting a plurality of containers 52 having a plurality of closures 40), and further comprising: placing each of the plurality of closures on a container neck of each of the plurality of containers (Valyi – Figure 4 shows the plurality of closures placed on a container neck of each of the plurality of containers); conveying each of the plurality of containers along a conveying direction (Valyi – as shown in figure 4 via the moving transfer belt 56); and simultaneously applying heat to a portion of tamper evidence bands (Valyi – 48, fig. 2) of at least some of the plurality of closures on container necks of at least some of the plurality of containers via the heat source (Valyi – Figure 4 shows at least some of the containers 52 having the closure 40 within heating units 58 wherein col. 4, ll. 3 – 6 describes the heating units 58 heat the tabs 48 of cap 40 on container 52).
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aichinger (US 4 003 472 A), in view of Valyi (US 8 075 726 B2), in further view of Barriac (US 4 721 221 A)
PNG
media_image1.png
409
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)]
Regarding claim 3, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Aichinger does not explicitly disclose causing the free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form the radial lip causes the radial lip to be spaced from the flange.
However, Barriac, in the same field of endeavor, teaches causing the free edge (lower edge A of the band 26, annotated fig. 1) of the tamper evidence band (26, fig. 1) to curl inwardly to form the radial lip causes the radial lip to be spaced from the flange (flange B, annotated fig. 1).
Barriac is evidence that causing the radial lip to be spaced from the flange was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonably expectation of success modifying the method of the modified Aichinger with causing the radial lip to be spaced from the flange, as taught by Barriac. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to modify the method of the modified Aichinger with causing the radial lip to be spaced from the flange, as taught by Barriac, prevent possible wear between the tamper evidence band and the flange of the container neck.
Regarding claim 4, Aichinger, as modified by Valyi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Aichinger does not explicitly disclose causing the free edge of the tamper evidence band to curl inwardly to form the radial lip causes the radial lip to be spaced from a sidewall of the container neck from which the flange extends.
However, Barriac, in the same field of endeavor, teaches causing the free edge (lower edge A of the band 26, fig. 1) of the tamper evidence band (26, fig. 1) to curl inwardly to form the radial lip causes the radial lip to be spaced from a sidewall (sidewall C, annotated fig. 1) of the container neck (30, fig. 3) from which the flange (flange B, fig. 1) extends.
Barriac is evidence that causing the radial lip to be spaced from a sidewall of the container neck from which the flange extends was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonably expectation of success modifying the method of the modified Aichinger with the radial lip to be spaced from a sidewall of the container neck from which the flange extends, as taught by Barriac. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to modify the method of the modified Aichinger with the radial lip to be spaced from a sidewall of the container neck from which the flange extends, as taught by Barriac, prevent possible wear between the tamper evidence band and the sidewall of the container neck from which the flange extends.
Examiner’s Note
Though no art rejection is given for claims 13 and 17, due to the rejection of claims 2 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the allowability of claims 13 are 17 cannot be determined until these rejections are resolved and further search and consideration is given.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights