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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, with there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19, 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Line 1 could read, “The invention related to a screw cap ….” 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Ref. Letter “P” [Fig. 9A].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 11 could read, “…the screw cap is
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurosawa et al. (2010/0108673) [Kurosawa].
Re Claim 1, Kurosawa – a plastic cap and attachment to a bottle – discloses a screw cap [20] having a drop-lid shape [Fig. 4], the screw cap comprising: a top surface [37b]; an inner side wall [37a] extending upward from an outer peripheral edge of the top surface; and a skirt portion [23] including a screw portion [25] and coupled to the inner side wall through an annular portion [63] extending outward from an upper end of the inner side wall, wherein the inner side wall includes an annular protruding portion having an outer diameter greater than an inner diameter of a container mouth portion [70] to which the screw cap is applied, and is elastically deformable in a cap radial direction [Paragraph 74 Lines 6-14].
Re Claim 5, Kurosawa discloses a sealing portion [39 or 50] configured to come into tight contact with an outer surface of the container mouth portion is formed at an upper portion of the skirt portion [Fig. 6].
Re Claim 6, Kurosawa discloses the screw cap is made of synthetic resin [Paragraph 51].
Re Claim 11, Kurosawa discloses the screw cap is to be applied to a bottle [Fig. 6].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Perne et al. (4,771,905) [Perne].
Re Claim 3, Kurosawa does not expressly disclose that a countersink portion is formed at an outer peripheral edge of the top surface. However, Perne – a tight screw cap for a container neck – discloses a cap [Perne, 2] with a countersink [Perne, 13] at an outer peripheral portion of the top surface [Perne, 7]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses a countersink for a top surface in a closure. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the top surface portion of the Kurosawa cap with a countersink portion, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, in order to take the pressure of the contents in the bottle [Perne, Col. 2 Lines 47-52].
Re Claim 4, Kurosawa does not expressly disclose the top surface has an upwardly-domed shape or a downwardly-domed shape. However, Perne discloses the closure has an upward domed shape [Perne, Fig. 1]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the closure can have an upwardly domed shape. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the top surface portion of the Kurosawa cap to have an upward domed shape, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, “…[for] providing a cap able to withstand the pressure of a carbonated beverage.” [Perne, Col. 1 Lines 29-30].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa as applied to Claim 6 above in view of Funahashi (2022/0388744).
Kurosawa does not expressly disclose that the cap is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET); however, Funahashi – a cap and bottle combination – discloses the cap [Funahashi, 20] can be made of PET [Funahashi, Paragraph 58]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses you can make the cap made of PET. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the Kurosawa cap to be made of PET, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, for environmental purposes [Funahashi, Paragraph 58 Lines 15-18], and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kurosawa or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kurosawa as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Funahashi.
Kurosawa does not expressly disclose that the screw cap is applied to a bottle; however, Funahashi discloses the cap [Funahashi, 20] is attached to a bottle [Funahashi, 2, Fig. 2]. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the attachment of a cap or a container. All of the claimed invention features are known within the prior art, and one of ordinary skill would be able to attach the Kurosawa cap to the bottle, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, for the container to be properly sealed [Funahashi, Paragraph 60].
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1 and 6 above, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re Claim 2, the prior art discloses most of the claimed invention according to Claim 1 above. However, the prior art does not expressly disclose that the inner side wall has a shape of an inequality sign that is bent outward in the cap radial direction, and the annular protruding portion is a bend portion of the shape of the inequality sign.
Re Claim 7, the prior art discloses most of the claimed invention. However, the prior art does not expressly disclose the convex portions having an amount of protrusion in a radial direction smaller than a height of a screw thread, and an irregularity formed in a circumferential direction on the skirt portion by the plurality of convex portions allows the skirt portion to be elastically deformed in a radial direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1893. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights