DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
All previous objections and 35 USC 112 are overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 in response to Office Action 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 13-14 and 22-23, Applicant argues that since a hinge portion 35 of the hinge area labeled in the annotated Figure is convex, it cannot be flush (page 12 bottom). Examiner points out flush is broad since the written specification does not describe the term nor does the claimed embodiment Figure 17 (right figure) show how or in what direction the elements amended are so flush to each other. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 22-23, Applicant argues that primary prior art Kwon is not manufacturable via slitting (page 13 bottom). Examiner points out it is. Kwon is capable of slitting in product claims 13 and 14. Also most of the slits are cut in Kwon, and regardless for all slits, secondary prior art Maguire reads, especially in dependent method claims 22-23. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 14, Applicant argues that previous primary prior art Benoit-Gonin needs a reason why a change of shape is obvious other than Benoit-Gonin showing a proximal shape to that claimed by the equation limitation (page 17 top). Examiner disagrees, pointing out such a rationale is prima facie obvious and that is sufficient. Also the rejection is not made in the analysis below, so the argument is currently moot.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 22-23, Applicant argues that Kwon teaches away from teaching creating slits (page 18 top). Examiner points out that is untrue by definition, as described for the next argument.
Regarding claims 22-23, Applicant argues that Maguire merely teaches blades that make slits, not the exact claimed and placed slits (page 18 top). Examiner points out that is irrelevant even if it were true. The analysis below says blades for making equivalent slits are known to be used. Examiner points out for arguments sake that molding a slit versus blade cutting a slit doesn’t matter to the end structure of the product – they are the same.
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 13-21 and 23 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 claims 14 and 23, the equation limitation (line seventh/eighth from last) meant for left Figure 17 now conflicts with the amendment (last three lines) which is for right Figure 17. First, the amendment connects the cap to the band through the sector (X), which the left Figure 17 cannot do since the second slit Y and vertical slits are a gap separating the sector. Second, the sector is X because the sector is amended to be “defined by the first and second vertical slits” meaning ‘between’. Note that this interpretation of ‘defined by’ as ‘between’ is proper since for example a toroid pool floatie defines an inner area of the pool but does not define the remainder of pool area outside itself as the outer bounds of the pool are defined by the pool boundary not the floatie. Therefore similarly, in left Figure 17 the vertical slits cannot define the area outside themselves, such as including Z. In right Figure 17, there is no distance between a vertical slit and an end of the first slit line, they intersect. In conclusion, the limitation “distance Z” does not exist, since there is no left Figure 17 “distance Z” equivalently labeled or possible to label in right Figure 17, and the claim is rendered indefinite. In other words, a distance equaling zero (intersect) is not “a distance”, because zero is nothing. Consequently, since the sector connects (right Figure 17, no horizontal distance Z) and the distance Z for the equation (left Figure 17, no sector connect) conflict, the examiner is rendered unable to evaluate the claim due to having mixed embodiments, so an additional rejection to this one is not made for these two claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 below.
Claims 15-21 and 23 are also rejected for depending upon a rejected parent claim.
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 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 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 13, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub 20120298666 by Kwon (hereinafter “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon teaches a plastic tethered closure (Figs 7-14; see examiner annotated Kwon Figure 7, hereinafter “EAFK7”; EAFK7, stopper 30 is a plastic tethered closure, Abstract, and [0047] of injection molded “resin solution”, to form stopper 30 [0050], which resin is necessarily plastic) for a container neck (Fig 9, 30 is for a container neck of a bottle container 10), comprising
a cap (EAFK7, stopper body 31 is a cap), a tamper-evident band (EAFK7, fixing ring 33 is a tamper-evident band), and a connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFK7, a connection is shown between 33 and 31), the tamper-evident band for staying on the container neck (Abstract, 33 stays 31 on the container neck), the cap comprises a top plate and a depending sidewall (EAFK7, plate and its depending wall);
a first horizontal, non-continuous straight line slit resulting only from slitting that (EAFK7, first, is a first horizontal straight line slitting/slit, shown non-continuous, Fig 10; if Applicant intends “slitting” to be a verb, examiner notes the prior art has the product structure, meaning the process of “slitting” is irrelevant, since “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” And “a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable”. MPEP 2113) forms several breakable bridges between the tamper-evident band and the cap (EAFK7 and Figs 8-9, breakable bridges 39 are between 33 and 31) and forms a sector, between ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous slit line, that creates a single hinge area of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFK7, first, defines a sector hinge area between its two ends, that is in the connection between 33 and 31), and
a second horizontal straight line slit resulting only from slitting at a distance W displaced in an axial direction of the closure from the first horizontal, non-continuous straight line slit further from the top plate (EAFK7, second, is “cutting line 37” which is a second horizontal slitting/slit, displaced/spaced apart from the first in an axial direction by a distance W depth, and is further from the plate than the first, Fig 10; MPEP 2113 as above), forms two flexible links of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFK7, two links, formed/defined by the first and second slitting, shown flexible, Fig 12), in which the distance W defines a depth of the flexible links between the first and second slit lines in the axial direction of the closure (EAFK7, W depth, is an axial height of the links between first and second), and in which the second horizontal slit line extends a width Y in a circumferential direction of the closure (EAFK7, second, shown extending in a circumferential direction a width distance);
a first vertical slit (EAFK7, vertical, is a first vertical slitting/slit between the dotted lines), and
a second vertical slit (EAFK7 & Fig 9 show a second vertical slitting/slit identical to the first; [0063] “straight line portions “d” are preferably cut”), at a distance X displaced in the circumferential direction of the closure from the first vertical slit (EAFK7, X);
the first vertical slit and second vertical slit extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slit line towards the second horizontal slit line a distance less than distance W (EAFK7 shows the verticals’ axial extent/distance is less than that of W depth (per Applicant Fig 17 right drawing)); wherein
the sector is defined by the first and second vertical slits, wherein the sector connects the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFK7 & Figs 10 & 13, sector is shown defined by the vertical slits, and connects cap to band (per Applicant Fig 17 right drawing)), and wherein the two flexible links and the hinge area are flush with the tamper-evident band in a closed position (see examiner annotated Kwon Figure 10, hereinafter “EAFK10”; EAFK10 shows that since all three elements (hinge area, links, band) share one inner diameter, their inner surfaces are necessarily all flush with one another).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kwon further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 (examiner chooses 13) or claim 14, in which, in the circumferential direction, a centre of the second horizontal straight slit line is positioned centrally between the ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous straight slit line (Fig 16 shows a center of second horizontal straight slitting/slit line 37 at least near the center (centrally) that is between the ends of the first (i.e. below sector)).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 (examiner chooses 13) or claim 14, in which the cap is screw threaded (Figs 8-9, 311).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 (examiner chooses 13) or claim 14, in combination with a container (Fig 9, bottle container 10 shown).
Regarding claim 19, Kwon further teaches in which the container is a bottle (Fig 9, bottle container 10 shown).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon further teaches the flexible links and the tamper-evident band define a common exterior diameter such that the peripheries thereof are generally coincident (EAFK7 & Figs 8-10 show that the links and band have circumferential outer peripheries defined by exterior diameters that are generally vertically/axially coincident with each other, i.e. from a top view generally concentric circles of the diameters, such that the peripheries thereby share a generally equal exterior diameter).
Regarding claim 21, Kwon further teaches the hinge area and the tamper-evident band define a common exterior diameter such that the peripheries thereof are generally coincident (EAFK7 & Fig 10 show that the hinge area and band have circumferential outer peripheries defined by exterior diameters that are generally vertically/axially coincident with each other, i.e. from a top view generally concentric circles of the diameters, such that the peripheries thereby share a generally equal exterior diameter).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20120298666 by Kwon (hereinafter “Kwon”) in view of US Pub 20170240326 by Rognard et al. (hereinafter “Rognard”).
Regarding claim 18, Kwon does not explicitly teach the container has a short neck finish.
Rognard, however, discloses a container that has a short neck finish (Fig 19, container neck 1, shown having “short neck finish 202”, Fig 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container neck of Kwon to be a short neck finish as taught by Rognard in order to advantageously increase ease of access by reducing distance to open the cap, and upon closing the cap beneficially more quickly shield container contents from the environment.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20120298666 by Kwon (hereinafter “Kwon”) in view of US Pub 20170362003 by Maguire (hereinafter “Maguire”).
Regarding claim 22, Kwon further teaches a method of forming the plastic tethered closure (EAFK7, 30) as claimed in claim 13 (shown existing therefore formed; see claim 13), the plastic tethered closure comprising the cap and the tamper-evident band, the tamper-evident band for staying on the container neck, the method comprising
performing a slitting operation (meaning the same as “forming” under broadest reasonable interpretation. “slitting” as an operation does not in itself define specifically how/with what the operation is performed) in which the tamper-evident band is made and the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band is created, the slitting operation comprising:
creating the first horizontal, non-continuous straight slit line, that forms several breakable bridges between the tamper-evident band and the cap and forms the sector that creates the hinge area of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band, and
creating the second horizontal straight slit line, at a distance W displaced in an axial direction of the closure from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, further from the top plate, that forms two flexible links of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band, in which the distance W defines the depth of the flexible links between the first and second slit lines in the axial direction of the closure, and in which the second horizontal slit line extends the width Y in a circumferential direction of the closure, and
creating the first vertical slit and the second vertical slit between which the link of the hinge area extends the distance X in the circumferential direction of the closure,
the first vertical slit and second vertical slit extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slit line towards the second horizontal slit line a distance less than distance W (all limitations, except the “blades”, are copied from the parent claim, so the parent claim fully reads on this claim but for blades, since it is shown “created”); wherein
the sector is defined by the first and second vertical slits, wherein the sector connects the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFK7 & Figs 10 & 13, sector is shown defined by the vertical slits, and connects cap to band), and wherein the two flexible links and the hinge area are flush with the tamper-evident band in a closed position (EAFK10 shows that since all three elements (hinge area, links, band) share one inner diameter, their inner surfaces are necessarily all flush with one another).
But Kwon does not explicitly teach a method of creating the slits and bridges using blades specifically.
Maguire, however, discloses making a similar tethered closure using blades (Figs 2 & 8-10, [0037-0038], shows and discloses at least two blades with one superposed creating horizontal and vertical slits and “bridge connection portions [that] are broken” (i.e. frangible bridges)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use superposed blades to create the first and second horizontal slittings to create the slittings as it is no more than a simple substitution of one slit creation method for another that is known in the art for creating tethered closure slits and would only produce the predictable results of the same end product. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
EP 3889063 – similar vertical slits, generally coincident exterior diameters, horizontal slits (Fig 3)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights