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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 11, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bois et al. (US 2018/0118423).
1: Bois teaches a tamper-evident cap (cap generally shown as 1, Figure 1) comprising: a cover (cover 3); and a collar (collar 4), wherein the cover is coupled to the collar by a plurality of connection tabs (connection tabs 6, Figures 1-9 and 12) within a connection region (region between 2 and 4, Figure 1) between the cover and the collar when the tamper-evident cap is in an initial, closed configuration (closed configuration in Figure 1), the connection region including a region of weakness (region of weakness located proximate the front of the cover and collar, Figure 12) extending along a partial circumferential arc of the connection region and a resistance region (resistance region located toward the rear of the cap, Figure 12) extending along a remainder circumferential arc of the connection region, the region of weakness having fewer connection tabs (two connections 6) of the plurality of connection tabs arranged therein than in the resistance region (four connections 6, located symmetrical to Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches that the region of weakness has only one connection tab arranged therein (one connection 6 shown in Figure 12).
4: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches that the cover includes a side wall extending between a top end and a bottom end (see Markup Figure 12 above) of the cover, the side wall having a plurality of indents defined therein (see indents located towards the front of cover 3, Figure 12 above).
5: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches that a first indent of the plurality of indents is circumferentially aligned with the region of weakness (first indent is aligned with the region of weakness located below the indent, see Figure 12).
11: Bois teaches a tamper-evident cap (cap generally shown as 1, Figure 1) comprising: a collar (collar 4); and a cover (cover 3) extending between a top end and a bottom end (see Markup Figure 12 above), the cover coupled to the collar at the bottom end (along connection at 10 and 12, Figure 1), the collar defining a connection aperture having a peripheral edge (aperture formed between the cover and collar, having a peripheral edge along the top of collar 4 and the bottom of cover 3), wherein a plurality of connection tabs extend from and connect the peripheral edge to the bottom end of the cover (see connection tabs 6, Figures 1-9 and 12), wherein the plurality of connection tabs are arranged circumferentially within a region of weakness (region of weakness located proximate the front of the cover and collar, Figure 12) and a resistance region (resistance region located toward the rear of the cap, see Figure 12), and wherein a first connection tab of the plurality of connection tabs is the only connection tab (see Figure 12, where only one connection tab is attached) of the plurality of connection tabs arranged within the region of weakness and is circumferentially spaced from a remainder of the plurality of connection tabs by a first distance (distance between 6 of the weakness region and one of the 6 of the resistance region).
13: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Bois further teaches that the cover includes a side wall extending between a top end and a bottom end (see Markup Figure 12 above) of the cover, the side wall having a plurality of indents defined therein (see indents located towards the front of cover 3, Figure 12 above).
14: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches that a first indent of the plurality of indents is circumferentially aligned with the region of weakness (first indent is aligned with the region of weakness located below the indent, see Figure 12).
19: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches a container at least partially closed by the tamper-evident cap (container 20, Figure 12).
20: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Bois further teaches a container at least partially closed by the tamper-evident cap (container 20, Figure 12).
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) 3, 7-8, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bois et al. (Bois US 2018/0118423).
3, 7: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Bois further teaches that arc is shown in the drawings as between 45 degrees and 180 degrees of the connection region, but does not explicitly teach in the specification that the partial circumferential arc is between 45° and 180° of a circumference of the connection region or the partial circumferential arc is 120o.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the partial circumferential arc is between 45° and 180° of a circumference of the connection region or the partial circumferential arc is 120o were applied since It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, MPEP 2144.05.
8: The modified Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 7 and Bois further teaches that the region of weakness has only one connection tab arranged therein (one connection 6 shown in Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the region of weakness has only one connection tab arranged therein in order to permit easier opening at the region of weakness.
15, 17: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Bois further teaches that arc is shown in the drawings as between 45 degrees and 180 degrees of the connection region, but does not explicitly teach in the specification that the partial circumferential arc is between 45° and 180° of a circumference of the connection region or the partial circumferential arc is 120o.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the partial circumferential arc is between 45° and 180° of a circumference of the connection region or the partial circumferential arc is 120o were applied since It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, MPEP 2144.05.
18: The modified Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 17 and Bois further teaches that the region of weakness has only one connection tab arranged therein (one connection 6 shown in Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the region of weakness has only one connection tab arranged therein in order to permit easier opening at the region of weakness.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bois et al. (Bois US 2018/0118423) in view of Miceli et al. (Miceli US 8,985,358).
6: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except the cover includes indicia thereon, the indicia identifying a circumferential location of the region of weakness relative to the cover.
Miceli teaches a plurality of indicia, Figures 11A-11D, wherein Figure 11A shows opening instructions for a cap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the cover includes indicia thereon, the indicia identifying a circumferential location of the region of weakness relative to the cover were applied in order to convey visual instructions or other information to a user.
16: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 except the cover includes indicia thereon, the indicia identifying a circumferential location of the region of weakness relative to the cover.
Miceli teaches a plurality of indicia, Figures 11A-11D, wherein Figure 11A shows opening instructions for a cap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of the cover includes indicia thereon, the indicia identifying a circumferential location of the region of weakness relative to the cover were applied in order to convey visual instructions or other information to a user.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bois et al. (Bois US 2018/0118423) in view of Luch (US 2005/0269282).
9-10: Bois teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 8 except the resistance region has 24 connection tabs arranged therein and the 24 connection tabs are spaced at regular intervals within the resistance region.
Luch teaches a plurality of bridges 76 which are tamper evident connections located circumferentially, Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bois such that the teaching of except the resistance region has 24 connection tabs arranged therein and the 24 connection tabs are spaced at regular intervals within the resistance region were applied in order to indicate that the connection is tampered with at smaller points around the connections, paragraph 0088, as taught by Luch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING M CHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (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 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.
/King M Chu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights