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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Response After Final Action filed on August 17, 2026, wherein: claims 1 was previously amended. Furthermore, this Office Action removes Form Paragraph 7.40 Action Is Final, Necessitated by Amendment incorrectly appended by the Examiner in the Final Rejection of August 10, 2026. Therefore, the Office Action of May 2, 2024, is withdrawn. Moreover, the Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1-4 are pending and will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20070102850A1) hereinafter VOGEL, in view of Fontana (U. S. Patent US7540389B2) hereinafter FONTANA.
Regarding claim 1, VOGEL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 6 below) a hermetically sealed container 12 of a thermoplastic material and comprising
a hollow body portion (FIG. 1),
a neck portion V2-01 unitary with the hollow body portion (FIG. 1), and
a removable cap 20 joined to the neck portion V2-01 by a frangible web 22 unitary with the removable cap 20 and with the neck portion V2-01;
the neck portion V2-01 terminating in a circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 which defines an access aperture 18 sized to receive a tapered male connector 72, said neck portion V2-01 defining a tapered access passageway (FIG. 6) to the hollow body portion (FIG. 1), and provided with a partial external thread 80, and
said tapered male connector 72 having internal threads 78;
the circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 having an area at least 1.85 times larger than an area defined by the access aperture 18; and
the access passageway (FIG. 6) extending continuously from said circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 to the hollow body portion (FIG. 1) and capable to be configured as a tapered female connector sized to receive said tapered male connector 72.
VOGEL fails to teach partial external thread 80 is a continuous external thread.
VOGEL fails to teach circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 having an area at least 1.85 times larger than an area defined by the access aperture 18.
However, FONTANA teaches (see FIG. 6 - FIG. 7 below) a hermetically sealed container 1 wherein neck portion 3 is provided with a continuous external thread 32 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified partial external thread 80 in the hermetically sealed container 12 of VOGEL with continuous external thread 32 as taught in the hermetically sealed container 1 of FONTANA to meet design requirements.
Furthermore, 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 area ratio of circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 / access aperture 18 being 1.85 in the hermetically sealed container 12 VOGEL and FONTANA to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
PNG
media_image1.png
673
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
807
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
736
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
732
437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
862
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
786
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
597
387
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
771
707
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, VOGEL and FONTANA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. VOGEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 12 wherein the circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 has an outer diameter-to-inner diameter ratio in the range of 1.6 to 1.7.
However, 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 ratio of outer diameter-to-inner diameter of circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface V5-01 (with range of 1.6 to 1.7) in the hermetically sealed container 12 of VOGEL and FONTANA to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 3, VOGEL and FONTANA (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. VOGEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 12 wherein the said partial external thread 80 is a buttress thread.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified continuous external thread 32 to a buttress thread in the hermetically sealed container 12 of VOGEL and FONTANA since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Regarding claim 4, VOGEL and FONTANA (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. VOGEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 6 above) hermetically sealed container 12 wherein said buttress thread is an "M" style modified buttress thread.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified buttress thread to a “M” style modified buttress thread in the hermetically sealed container 12 of VOGEL and FONTANA since these are regarded as mechanical equivalents intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012]
Response To Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding outstanding Final Action not following MPEP § 706.07(a) are found persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument wherein VOGEL does not teach “neck portion 16 unitary with hollow body portion (FIG. 1)” is non persuasive. As noted in edited by the Examiner FIG. 2 of VOGEL, the Examiner adds label V2-01 to further specify presence of the “neck portion V2-01 unitary with hollow body portion (FIG. 1)”.
Regarding applicant’s argument “… element 80 …” is not a thread is non persuasive. VOGEL refers to “… element 80 …” as “port threads 80” (see page 9, para. [0036], line(s) 8-9), hence the Examiner refers to it as --partial external thread 80-- since it is a structure to convert a rotation into a linear displacement as known in the arts and intended in (FIG. 6).
Regarding applicant’s argument VOGEL does not show “... the neck portion 16 terminating in a circumferential, annular, flat sealing surface ...” is non persuasive since structure is shown in FIG. 5 - FIG. 6 and labeled by the Examiner as V5-01.
Regarding applicant’s argument no teaching is present in VOGEL to lead to FONTANA since “external taper threads on screw 32 (of FONTANA) are not compatible with the female threaded surface 78 (of VOGEL)” is non persuasive because Examiner is not basing rejection upon bodily incorporation. Examiner is taking the teaching of having external continuous external threads 32 of FONTANA and applying those to --partial external thread 80-- of VOGEL given one of ordinary skill in the arts would apply complementary external threads in VOGEL.
Regarding applicant’s argument VOGEL and FONTANA does not show or suggest thread profiles in claim 3-4 (i.e., claim 3; buttress thread, claim 4; "M" style modified buttress thread) is non persuasive since when considering thread profiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would be of knowledge of the different thread profiles available and would have placed any type of threads to match the threads on the connector being used to meet design considerations.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20210108810A): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Brandenburger et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2015036536A1): teaches an “ampoule” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Cosman (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190344932A1): teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Smith (U. S. Patent US7387216B1): teaches a “closure device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Farris (U. S. Patent US6918418B1): teaches an “apparatus” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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 ttps://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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights