DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the preamble uses the transitional phrase “comprises”; this should be changed to “comprising” in order to harmonize with the transitional phrases described in MPEP 2111.03.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a container with closure unit” should be “a container with the closure unit” in order to properly refer back to the closure introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, from which the remaining claims depend, the term “in each case” is indefinite because it is not clear back to which element it refers.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if the limitation “the dimension of the lattice structure band or its section in the direction of the closure cap axis” limits two separate dimensions, or one single one in alternate terms.
Further regarding claim 4, the term “in each case” is indefinite because it is not clear back to which element it refers.
Regarding claim 7, the term “this end” lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is not clear back to which element it refers.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is indefinite because of the term “optionally” which makes it unclear if the claimed limitation is required.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the phrase “for this purpose” comprise.
Regarding claim 15, the term “in each case” is indefinite because it is not clear back to which element it refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2023/275624 (Kachanov).
Regarding claim 1, Kachanov teaches a closure unit for selectively closing or opening a container opening of a container, wherein the closure unit comprises:
a closure cap (100), wherein the closure cap has a cap cover plate (120) and a cap skirt (140) adjoining the cap cover plate on the circumferential side, wherein the cap skirt extends at least in sections cylindrically and/or conically around a closure cap axis (cylindrically as seen in Figure 2; Examiner notes Figure 2 shows only the features which extend radially inwardly from the primary sidewall thickness and thus recesses 220 and 230 appear to be windows but are nonetheless taught in the specification to be recesses), wherein the cap skirt has an outer surface directed away from the closure cap axis (external surface) and an inner surface directed towards the closure cap axis (radially inner surface), wherein the closure cap has a first guiding means (210) which is arranged on the inner surface of the cap skirt (see Figure 2), wherein the first guiding means is configured and arranged in such a way that it can be brought into engagement with a second guiding means of a container in order to close the container opening of the container (see final two lines of page 2 teaching mating with container neck threads), wherein a lattice structure band composed of a plurality of first recesses (220) and webs (240) is provided in the inner surface of a cylindrical section of the cap skirt (see Figures 2 and 3), wherein the lattice structure band extends in the circumferential direction and has a sequence of the webs and first recesses (see circumferential sequence of recesses 220 and webs 240 in Figures 2 and 3),wherein a first recess is arranged in each case between two webs in the circumferential direction (see recess 220 between adjacent gray sections of webs 240 in Figure 3), wherein the lattice structure band is arranged on a side of the first guiding means facing away from the cap cover plate and/or on a side of the first guiding means facing the cap cover plate and/or between two guiding means segments arranged one above the other in the direction of the closure cap axis (see Figure 3 showing the recesses 220 and webs 240 represented in gray, noting not all recesses and webs are labeled as such in the Figure, being vertically interspersed with thread segments 210).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the lattice structure band has at least two sections spaced apart from each other in the circumferential direction (see Figure 2 showing repeating sections of recesses and webs circumferentially separated by vent channels 230).
Regarding claim 3, the lattice structure band extends over at least one circumferential angle section over which the first guiding means extends (each of the recesses, webs, and threads is disposed in a circumferential section which is circumferentially spaced from the adjacent sections by venting recesses 230 as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, each first recess has a rectangular, triangular, circular, elliptical or polygonal shape or a shape composed of these shapes when viewed in the plane of an unrolled cap skirt (the recesses 220 are rectangular when viewed in the unrolled cap skirt; see 220 in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, the first recesses have similar shapes when viewed in the plane of the unrolled cap skirt (see the consistent shape of recesses 220 in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, the first recesses are arranged in a section of the lattice structure band in groups of three first recesses arranged next to each other in the circumferential direction (see Figure 2 showing at least 3 circumferentially adjacent recesses 220 at any axial level thereof).
Regarding claim 13, the lattice structure band extends, optionally in sections, over a circumferential angle of at least 180° (Examiner notes this claim is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite, the term “optionally” is read such that the limitation is not required).
Regarding claim 14, Kachanov teaches a combination comprising:
a container with closure unit according to claim wherein the container has a container opening and a second guiding means and the closure unit cooperates with the container for selectively closing or releasing the container opening, wherein the first guiding means of the closure unit can be brought into engagement with the second guiding means of the container for this purpose (see final two lines of page 2 teaching mating with container neck threads).
Regarding claim 15, the webs extend in each case over the entire dimension of the respective lattice structure band in the direction of the closure cap axis (see Figure 3 showing the webs 240 having the same vertical extent as the recesses between vertically adjacent thread segments 210).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/275624 (Kachanov) as applied above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes this claim is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. Kachanov fails to teach that the dimension of the lattice structure band or its section in the direction of the closure cap axis corresponds in each case to the length of the respective first recess including the side walls of the first recess adjoining in the direction of the closure cap axis in this direction and is smaller than the extent of the first guiding means in the direction of the closure cap axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the recesses relative to the thread segments, forming them to have a smaller axial extent than the threads, motivated by an obvious change in size of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size, absent a teaching of an unexpected result, is within ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A):
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 5, the first guiding means has at least one second recess (230) which extends in the direction of the closure cap axis and whose dimension in the direction of the closure cap axis is greater than or equal to the extent of the guiding means in the direction of the closure cap axis (vent recesses 230 have a larger axial extent than the threads as clearly seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, elevations (310) are configured on the outer surface of the cap skirt (see Figure 4), wherein each elevation runs parallel with a second recess (each run vertically) in such a way that the cap skirt has a U-shaped profile in the region of the second recess (a U-shape is made between two adjacent ribs 310 and the sidewall surface, on the outer surface of the cap skirt at the circumferential location of recesses 230).
Regarding claim 8, the plurality of first recesses, viewed in the circumferential direction, are arranged in sections lying between two circumferentially adjacent second recesses (see recesses 220 located circumferentially between adjacent recesses 230 Figures 2 and 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Kachanov fails to teach that the lattice structure band is arranged in a section of the cap skirt which is arranged below the end of the second recess facing away from the cap cover plate, or begins in a section of the cap skirt at this end of the second recess and extends in the axial direction away from the cap cover plate. Examiner notes Figure 2 whereby it appears the second recesses (230) extend the full axial height of the skirt inner surface. Thus the first recesses are not arranged below, or begin below and extend away, from the bottom of the second recesses.
Regarding claim 12, Kachanov fails to teach that the recess base of each first recess is planar in shape and extends parallel or obliquely to the closure cap axis. The recesses appear to be circular and continuous with the inner periphery of the skirt as seen in Figure 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights