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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The equation “(½ Y – ½ X - Z)” is not provided in written specification even though supported by original Fig. 17.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-23 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 14 and 23, last line, “slitting the distance W” should read “slitting by the distance W”.
Regarding claims 15-21, “A closure (610)” should read “The closure (610)”.
Regarding claim 22-23, “a plastic tethered closure” should read “the plastic tethered closure”.
Regarding claims 22-23, all elements except the blades should change article from “a” to “the” because these claims copy their parent claim limitations.
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 13-23 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 13 and 14, line 6, the term “wider” of the phrase “wider sector” is a relative term of degree. The sector is wider than what? Perhaps the sector is wider than the breakable bridges? Examiner interprets “wider sector” as “sector”.
Claims 15-23 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13, 15-17 and 19 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 (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 slitting (EAFK7, first, is a first horizontal slitting, shown non-continuous) 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 wider sector, between ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, 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 slitting at a distance W displaced in an axial direction of the closure from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting further from the top plate (EAFK7, second, is “cutting line 37” which is a second horizontal slitting, displaced/spaced apart from the first in an axial direction by a distance W depth, and is further from the plate than the first), 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 (of the embodiment [0035] “Figs 7 to 14”)), in which the distance W defines a depth of the flexible links in the axial direction of the closure (EAFK7, W depth, is an axial height of the links), and in which the second horizontal slitting 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 slitting (EAFK7, vertical, is a first vertical slitting between the dotted lines), and
a second vertical slitting (EAFK7 & Fig 9 show a second vertical slitting identical to the first), at a distance X displaced in the circumferential direction of the closure from the first vertical slitting (EAFK7, X);
the first and second vertical slitting extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting towards the second horizontal slitting 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)).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
899
media_image1.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 slitting is positioned centrally between the ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting (Fig 16 shows a center of second horizontal slitting 37 at least near the center (centrally) that is between the ends of the first).
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).
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, teaches a container that has a short neck finish (Fig 19, container neck 1, shown having “short neck finish 202”, Fig 28).
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 a plastic tethered closure (EAFK7, 30) as claimed in claim 13 (shown existing therefore formed; see claim 13), the plastic tethered closure comprising a cap and a 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” does not define how/with what the operation is performed) in which the tamper-evident band is made and a connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band is created, the slitting operation comprising:
creating a first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, that forms several breakable bridges between the tamper-evident band and the cap and forms a wider sector that creates a hinge area of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band, and
creating a second horizontal slitting, 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 a depth of the flexible links in the axial direction of the closure, and in which the second horizontal slitting extends a width Y in a circumferential direction of the closure, and
creating a first and a second vertical slitting between which the link of the hinge area extends a width X in the circumferential direction of the closure,
the first and second vertical slitting extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting towards the second horizontal slitting a distance less than distance W (see objections above; 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”).
But does not explicitly teach a method of creating the slittings and bridges using blades specifically.
Maguire, however, teaches 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”).
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.
Claims 14-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6474491 issued to Benoit-Gonin et al. (hereinafter “Benoit-Gonin”).
Regarding claim 14, Benoit-Gonin teaches a plastic tethered closure (see examiner annotated Benoit-Gonin Figure 4, hereinafter “EAFB4”; EAFB4, capping device 1 is a tethered closure, of plastic, “polyethylene or polypropylene”, col 2, lines 29-31) for a container neck (EAFB4, 1 is shown on a neck of container 2, which is a bottle, col 1, lines 54-57), comprising
a cap (EAFB4, 6), a tamper-evident band (EAFB4, ring 3 is a tamper-evident band), and a connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band, the tamper-evident band for staying on the container neck (EAFB4, a connection is shown between 6 and 3), the cap comprises a top plate and a depending sidewall (EAFB4, plate and its depending wall);
a first horizontal, non-continuous slitting (EAFB4, first, is a first horizontal slitting, shown non-continuous at tongue 21) forms several breakable bridges between the tamper-evident band and the cap (EAFB4, shows that the disclosed breakable bridges go in the first horizontal slitting; col 2, lines 55-61, “Unscrewing of the cap gives rise to the aforesaid movement of the arms [tethers/links of the band/ring 3], and, as the case may be, the rupture of the bridges constituting the evidence”) and forms a wider sector, between ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, that creates a hinge area of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFB4, between the ends of first in a sector formed by those ends and in the connection is a hinge area defined by “hinges 5”), and
a second horizontal slitting (EAFB4, second, is a second horizontal slitting), at a distance W displaced in an axial direction of the closure from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, further from the top plate (see examiner annotated Benoit-Gonin Figure 2, hereinafter “EAFB2”; EAFB2, W, and second is further from the plate, EAFB4), forms two flexible links of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band (EAFB4, arms 4 are the two links, shown flexible), in which the distance W defines a depth of the flexible links in the axial direction of the closure (Fig 2, said axial distance defines a depth/[height] of the links), and in which the second horizontal slitting extends a width Y in a circumferential direction of the closure (EAFB4, second, shown extending in a circumferential direction a width distance);
a first vertical slitting (EAFB2, first vertical slitting, as one slit of the pair of inner slits 17), and
a second vertical slitting (EAFB2, second vertical slitting, as the other slit of the pair of inner slits 17), at a distance X displaced in the circumferential direction of the closure from the first vertical slitting (EAFB2, X);
each of the two flexible links extending, in the circumferential direction, a distance (EAFB2 & EAFB4, links are shown extending in the circumferential direction a distance) whereby distance Z (EAFB4, Z) is defined between a respective vertical slitting and end of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting (EAFB4, end, is an end of the first horizontal slitting, and is mirrored for the second vertical slitting; col 4, lines 21-26, since the hinges 5 of the hinge area “are symmetrical with respect to the median axis of the tongue 21”), and the first and second vertical slitting extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting to the second horizontal slitting by the distance W (EAFB2, the first and second vertical slitting are shown extending the axial distance W from first to/into second horizontal slitting (per Applicant Fig 17 left drawing)).
But does not explicitly teach a specific link length.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make “each of the two flexible links extending, in the circumferential direction, a distance (½ Y – ½ X - Z)” precisely, having the teachings of Benoit-Gonin before them (EAFB2 shows each link extending in a circumferential distance equal to “extent” that is between “end” and the dashed line (e.g. “extent” is the distance result of the claimed equation), wherein the extent is shown very nearly equal to 1/2 Y minus half of X minus Z, especially since the prior art discloses the hinges 5 are “symmetrical” (as cited above)), since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
461
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Benoit-Gonin further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 or claim 14 (examiner chooses 14), in which, in the circumferential direction, a centre of the second horizontal slitting is positioned centrally between the ends of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting (EAFB4, a center of second, at 1/2 Y, EAFB2, is shown near the center (centrally) that is between the ends of the first (i.e. EAFB2 middle dashed line shows the claimed positioning)).
Regarding claim 16, Benoit-Gonin further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 or claim 14 (examiner chooses 14), in which the cap is screw threaded (Fig 8, thread 11 threads to cap).
Regarding claim 17, Benoit-Gonin further teaches a closure as claimed in claim 13 or claim 14 (examiner chooses 14), in combination with a container (EAFB4, container 2).
Regarding claim 19, Benoit-Gonin further teaches in which the container is a bottle (Fig 4, container 2, is a bottle, col 1, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 20, Benoit-Gonin further teaches the flexible links and the tamper-evident band define a common exterior diameter such that the peripheries thereof are generally coincident (EAFB2, peripheries, of the links and the band are shown as generally coincident, and the links and band have a common exterior diameter).
Regarding claim 21, Benoit-Gonin further teaches the hinge area (EAFB2, hinges 5 area near tongue 21) and the tamper-evident band define a common exterior diameter such that the peripheries thereof are generally coincident (Fig 1, the hinge area and band peripheries are shown as generally coincident, and the hinge area and band have a common exterior diameter).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6474491 issued to Benoit-Gonin et al. (hereinafter “Benoit-Gonin”) in view of US Pub 20170240326 by Rognard et al. (hereinafter “Rognard”).
Regarding claim 18, Benoit-Gonin does not explicitly teach the container has a short neck finish.
Rognard, however, teaches a container that has a short neck finish (Fig 19, container neck 1, shown having “short neck finish 202”, Fig 28).
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 Benoit-Gonin to be a short neck finish as taught by Rognard in order to advantageously increase ease of access by reducing the distance to open the cap, and upon closing the cap beneficially more quickly shield container contents from the environment.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 6474491 issued to Benoit-Gonin et al. (hereinafter “Benoit-Gonin”) in view of US Pub 20170362003 by Maguire (hereinafter “Maguire”).
Regarding claim 23, Benoit-Gonin further teaches a method of forming a plastic tethered closure (EAFB4, 1) as claimed in claim 14 (shown existing therefore formed; see claim 14), the plastic tethered closure comprising a cap and a 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” does not define how/with what the operation is performed) in which the tamper-evident band is made and a connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band is created, the slitting operation comprising:
creating a first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, that forms several breakable bridges between the tamper-evident band and the cap and forms a wider sector that creates a hinge area of the connection between the cap and the tamper-evident band, and
creating a second horizontal slitting, 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 a depth of the flexible links in the axial direction of the closure, and in which the second horizontal slitting extends a width Y in a circumferential direction of the closure, and:
creating a first vertical slitting and a second vertical slitting, at a distance X displaced in the circumferential direction of the closure from the first slitting,
each of the two flexible links extending, in the circumferential direction, a distance (½ Y - ½ X - Z) whereby distance Z is defined between a respective vertical slitting and end of the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting, and the first and second vertical slitting extending, in the axial direction, from the first horizontal, non-continuous slitting to the second horizontal slitting the distance W (see objections above; 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”). See details in the parent claim 14 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify for the equation.
But does not explicitly teach a method of creating the slittings and bridges using blades specifically.
Maguire, however, teaches 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”).
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
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