DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 16-21, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,090,631 (Grussen) in view of US 4,061,240 (Brownbill) and US 4,106,996 (Aichinger).
Regarding claim 16, Grussen teaches a closure cap for closing the neck of a reusable container, comprising:
a circular top plate (10),
a cylindrical threaded part (1) surrounding the circular top plate and having an open edge and an internal thread (3),
an inner seal (9) protruding from inside of the circular top plate and extending concentrically, which includes a base (11) and a sealing section (13) adjoining the base and extending radially outwards (see 13, 13a extending radially outwards in Fig. 1), and
an outer seal (16) protruding from an inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part and extending concentrically (not taught), which extends radially inwardly and downwardly (clearly shown extending inwardly and downwardly in Fig. 1), wherein the sealing section seamlessly connects to the base (13 is integrally formed with 11 and transitions from 11 by region 12),
the sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end (not explicitly taught).
To summarize, Grussen fails to teach:
a) the outer seal protruding from an inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part and extending concentrically; and
b) the sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end.
Regarding limitation (a), Examiner notes Grussen teaches the outer seal (16) is located “near the angle 17 between the wall 1 of the cap and the top 10 thereof” (col. 6, lines 1-4).
Brownbill, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches it is known to locate an outer seal (15) at a transition (14) between the crown (10) and skirt (11; see teaching in col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 4).
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 closure cap of Grussen, locating the outer seal at the inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part as taught by Brownbill, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the invention, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result.
A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding limitation (b), Aichinger, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches a sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end (see 9 in Fig. 3) to achieve the same purpose of sealing against the bottle neck inner surface (see Figs. 1 and 5).
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 closure of Grussen, providing a sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward the open end as taught by Aichinger, motivated by the simple substitution of an equally suitable sealing structure, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 17, the sealing section comprises a first end, which connects to the base (Grussen 11; Fig. 1), and a second, open end (Grussen and Aichinger teach teach the seal extending to an open, or distal, end).
Regarding claim 18, the sealing section extends radially outwardly and downwardly (see the right half of Aichinger Fig. 1, as well as Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Grussen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger fails to teach that the outer seal further comprises cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end.
Brownbill teaches the seal (15) tapering continuously toward open end (19; see Fig. 1).
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 outer seal of Grussen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger, forming it to taper to an open end as taught by Brownbil, motivated by benefit of making the tip flexible to promote accommodating the shape of the end of the bottle on which the closure cap is applied, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 20, the outer seal further comprises a first end, which operatively couples to a transition between the circular top plate and the cylindrical threaded part, and a second, open end (Grussen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger teaches the outer seal extending from the transition e.g. Brownbill Fig. 1 at 15 to a second, open end, e.g. Brownbill Fig. 1 at 19).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the open end of the sealing section and the open end of the outer seal are rounded (the ends are rounded in that they are circular discs).
Regarding claim 23, the base comprises a constant cross-sectional width (see Gruseen col. 6, lines 24-28 teaching base 11 as being “cylindrical”).
Regarding claim 24, the sealing section is bendable at its first end (see 9 bending in the sequence shown in Aichinger Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 25, the outer seal is bendable at its first end (Examiner notes Brownbill 15 is not shown to bend, but is capable of bending because it is thinner, and the reference shows the thicker base portion bending; a sufficient force on the first end would result in its bending).
Regarding claim 27, Grussen teaches, in combination, a closure cap for closing the neck of a reusable container, comprising:
a circular top plate (10),
a cylindrical threaded part (1) surrounding the circular top plate and having an open edge and an internal thread (3),
an inner seal (9) protruding from inside of the circular top plate and extending concentrically, which includes a base (11) and a sealing section (13) adjoining the base and extending radially outwards (see 13, 13a extending radially outwards in Fig. 1), and
an outer seal (16) protruding from an inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part and extending concentrically (not taught), which extends radially inwardly and downwardly (clearly shown extending inwardly and downwardly in Fig. 1), wherein the sealing section seamlessly connects to the base (13 is integrally formed with 11 and transitions from 11 by region 12),
the sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end (not explicitly taught), and
and a reusable container comprising a neck (14) and an interior surface (14a) and an exterior surface having formed thereon an external thread (unlabeled; seen in Fig. 2 engaging closure thread 3),
wherein the external thread of the reusable container operatively couples with the internal thread of the cylindrical threaded part (clearly shown engaging closure thread 3 in Fig. 2).
To summarize, Grussen fails to teach:
a) the outer seal protruding from an inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part and extending concentrically; and
b) the sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end.
Regarding limitation (a), Examiner notes Grussen teaches the outer seal (16) is located “near the angle 17 between the wall 1 of the cap and the top 10 thereof” (col. 6, lines 1-4).
Brownbill, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches it is known to locate an outer seal (15) at a transition (14) between the crown (10) and skirt (11; see teaching in col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 4).
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 closure cap of Grussen, locating the outer seal at the inner transition from the circular top plate to the cylindrical threaded part as taught by Brownbill, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the invention, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result.
A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding limitation (b), Aichinger, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches a sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward an open end (see 9 in Fig. 3) to achieve the same purpose of sealing against the bottle neck inner surface (see Figs. 1 and 5).
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 closure of Grussen, providing a sealing section having a cross-section which tapers continuously toward the open end as taught by Aichinger, motivated by the simple substitution of an equally suitable sealing structure, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 28, when the closure cap is operatively coupled to the neck of the reusable container, the sealing section is bent outwardly at its first end and bears against the interior surface of the container neck with a defined surface support by virtue of the restoring force generated by the outward bending (see Grussen 13a in Fig. 2, which is modified to provide Aichinger 9 in Fig. 1 therein, each of which performs in the same manner to achieve the same result of sealing on the container neck inner surface).
Regarding claim 29, when the closure cap is operatively coupled to the neck of the reusable container, the outer seal is bent inwardly at a first end and bears against an outer edge of an end face of the neck of the reusable container, wherein an elevation intensifies or focuses pressure on the outer edge of an end face of the neck of the reusable container (see Grussen 16 in Fig. 2, which is modified to provide Brownbill 15 in Fig. 3 therein, each of which performs in the same manner to achieve the same result of sealing on the container neck inner surface).
4. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,090,631 (Grussen) in view of US 4,061,240 (Brownbill) and US 4,106,996 (Aichinger) as applied above to claim 16, and further in view of US 7,207,453 (Rossi).
Regarding claim 22, further comprising a concentric elevation formed adjacent to the outer seal on an inner side of the top plate.
Examiner notes Brownbill suggests a support in segments (23).
Rossi, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches a concentric elevation (4) formed adjacent to an outer seal on an inner side of a top plate (see location in Fig. 2), which provides support to the closure and seal (col. 5, lines 22-35; Fig. 3).
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 closure cap of Grussen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger, providing a concentric elevation as taught by Rossi, motivated by the benefit of providing support for the closure and outer seal, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
5. Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,090,631 (Grussen) in view of US 4,061,240 (Brownbill) and US 4,106,996 (Aichinger) as applied above to claim 16, and further in view of US 5,638,972 (Druitt).
Regarding claim 26, Gruseen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger fails to teach that the closure cap comprises an injection-molded high-density polyethylene.
Druitt, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches it is known to form closures with flexible seals of high density polyethylene (col. 2, lines 9-10).
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 closure cap of Gruseen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger, forming it of high-density polyethylene as taught by Druitt, motivated by the use of a suitable material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 30, Gruseen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger fails to teach that the reusable container comprises plastic, and wherein the plastic comprises at least one PET or PEF.
Druitt, analogous to threaded closure caps, teaches it is known to form the bottle on which the closure is applied, of PET (col. 1, lines 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the container of Gruseen in view of Brownbill and Aichinger, forming it of PET as taught by Druitt, motivated by the use of a suitable material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
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