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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreinbrink (US2021/0179323) in view of Tsujiguchi et al (Tsujiguchi) (2014/0319093).
1. A method of making a polyester resin closure (Fig. 5 at 20) that mounts onto a finish of a container (Fig. 4); the polyester resin closure comprising: at least one layer (20) that comprises: an annular wall (below Fig. 4) configured to seat against a top surface of a rim of the finish (the annular wall and the inner closure sit together against the surface of the rim and alternatively, when the outer closure is removed the annular wall is configured to sit against a rim finish); and an outer cylindrical wall (Fig. 4 at 121) extending downward from the annular wall, wherein an outer layer (120) of the outer cylindrical wall comprises a plurality of knurls (Fig. 7 at 121); a tamper evidence feature (230) configured to engage with a tamper evidence ledge of the finish (Fig. 4); the method comprising injection molding (paragraph 0035) or compression molding the polyester resin into the polyester resin closure, wherein the polyester resin comprises polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0033), polyethylene furandicarboxylate, or a copolymer thereof. Kreinbrink DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a plug seal configured to seal against an inner surface of the finish. Attention, however is directed to Tsujiguchi which discloses such a seal (Fig. 2 at 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Kreinbrink, in view of the teachings of Tsujiguchi, by employing a plug seal, in order to use an alternative seal for sealing the container, that a user does not have to peel off.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of the polyester resin closure comprises: an outer layer that comprises: an outer layer annular wall; and an outer layer outer cylindrical wall that extends downwardly from the outer layer annular wall; and an inner layer that comprises: an inner layer annular wall; and an inner layer outer cylindrical wall that extends downwardly from the inner layer annular wall (Kreinbrink , Fig. 5).
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the outer layer outer cylindrical wall comprises a plurality of knurls (Kreinbrink, Fig. 7 at 121).
14. The method of claim 12, wherein an inner surface of the inner layer outer cylindrical wall comprises internal threads (Kreinbrink , Fig. 4 at 221) configured to engage with the finish.
15. The method of claim 12, wherein the tamper evidence feature comprises a tamper evidence band (Kreinbrink , Fig. 4 at 230).
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the outer layer comprises a different polyester resin than the inner layer (Kreinbrink, paragraph 0033).
Claim(s) 2-5, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch (where Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch are the references).
2. The method of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the polyester resin is a polyethylene terephthalate copolymer. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a material, in order to have a material that can be made efficiently and caters to consumers.
3. The method of claim 2, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose further comprising incorporating a co-monomer into the polyethylene terephthalate copolymer to control crystallization and reduce melt processing temperatures. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a material, in order to have a material that can be made efficiently and caters to consumers.
4. The method of claim 2, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the polyethylene terephthalate copolymer is PETF. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a material, in order to have a material that can be made efficiently and caters to consumers.
5. The method of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose further comprising combining polyethylene terephthalate with an amount of furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA), diethylene glycol (DEG), or a combination thereof prior to the injection molding or the compression molding to reduce a modulus of the polyester resin and allow the polyester resin closure to be ejected from a cavity of a mold. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a material, in order to have a material that can be made efficiently and caters to consumers.
11. The method of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the outer cylindrical wall comprises internal threads configured to engage with the finish. However, Kreinbrink does disclose threads on the closure. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ internal threads, in order to have a more secure connection.
17. The method of claim 11, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the polyester resin closure is transparent. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a material, in order to have a material that can be made efficiently and caters to consumers.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch (where Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch are the references) and in further view of Togawa (20150080544).
7. The method of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the method is performed while limiting an intrinsic viscosity of the polyester resin. Attention, however is directed to Togawa paragraph 0030, which discloses limiting an intrinsic viscosity. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a process, in order to have an alternative effective way of making the closure.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch (where Kreinbrink, in view of Tsujiguch are the references), and in further view of Smith (20050167879).
10. The method of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the injection molding or the compression molding is performed with a movable core component. Attention, however is directed to Smith paragraph 0011 which discloses injection molding is performed with a movable core component. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a process, in order to have an alternative effective way of making the closure.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are 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
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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights