Patent Application 18708148 - SELF-CLOSING CAP FOR PREVENTING WET WIPES FROM - Rejection

Patent Application 18708148 - SELF-CLOSING CAP FOR PREVENTING WET WIPES FROM

Title: SELF-CLOSING CAP FOR PREVENTING WET WIPES FROM DRYING OUT

Application Information

• Invention Title: SELF-CLOSING CAP FOR PREVENTING WET WIPES FROM DRYING OUT
• Application Number: 18708148
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-05-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-05-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 85580
• Art Unit: 3736
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


Claims 1-5 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.
As to claim 1, applicant recites “the cover connected to the base and configured to determine whether to open of close”.  However, it is not clear how the cover can “configured to determine” without any sensor or processing unit.  The cover without any sensor or processing unit cannot self-determine whether to open or close the wet wipe packing film pack.  Therefore, applicant terminology is incorrect and should use to word.  Perhaps a translation from a foreign application altered the meaning of the claim?  Correction is required.
As to claim 2-3, applicant recites “and in another type of self-closing cap for precenting wet wipes from drying out” which is not clear what structure applicant is referring to “another type of self-closing cap” since applicant only discloses one type of the self-closing cap and the specification and drawing does not specifically shows “another type of self-closing cap”.  Furthermore, there are no structure limitation to “another type of self-closing cap in claims 2-3.  Clarification is required.
As to claim 5, applicant recites “at a same time and forms different type of second hanger” which is not clear what structure applicant referring to “different type of second hanger” as applicant only claiming one type of self-closing cap and the specification and drawing does not specifically shows “different type of second hanger”.  Furthermore, there are no structure limitation of the “different type of second hanger” in claim 5.  Clarification is required
Claim 4 is also rejected under 112(b) due to its dependency of rejected claim 1.  
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rubo et al (9,327,892) in view of Propst et al (4,354,611).
As to claim 1, Rubo discloses a cap (130)  for preventing wet wipes from drying out, which is tightly installed on an upper surface of a wet wipe packaging film pack (101, column 3, lines 64-67 to column 4, lines 1-8 teaches the wet wipe packaging film) , the cap comprising: a base attached to the wet wipe packaging film pack, and secured to the film pack and connected to a cover at a same time (with sealing area 113 on the top of the wipe container and the bottom surface is attached to the sealing area); the cover connected to the base and configured to determine whether to open or close the wet wipe packaging film pack (as best understand, the lid 130 closed upon the base 125 to open or close the wet wipe packaging film pack (101); an outlet (131) formed inside of the base and located at an inlet through which wet wipes come out.  However, Rubo does not discloses the cap being self-closed with a first hanger formed at one side of the inner surface of the base; a second hanger formed at one side of the inner surface of the cover; and an elastic element (connected to the first hanger and the second hanger to form a primary driving force to the closing of the cover.  Nevertheless, Propst discloses a lid being self-closed lid (348) with a first hanger (372) formed at one side of the inner surface of the base (342) ; a second hanger (363) formed at one side of the inner surface of the cover (348); and an elastic element (374) connected to the first hanger and the second hanger to form a primary driving force to the closing of the cover (as shown in Figure 16 and 17, once the elastic element 374 turn to open position  .  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of the Rubo with elastic member attached to the inside surface of the lid and the inside surface of the base as taught by Propst in order to assist the closing the lid against the base.  
As to claim 4, Rubo as modified does not specifically disclose the elastic element is formed in different shapes including an oval or elliptical shape and an 8 shape, and adjusts an extent of closure of the self-closing cap for preventing wet wipes from drying out with varying elasticity for each different shape.  Nevertheless, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic member of Rubo as modified so the shape of the elastic element is formed in different shapes including an oval or elliptical shape and an 8 shape, and adjusts an extent of closure of the self-closing cap for preventing wet wipes from drying out with varying elasticity for each different shape because the selection of the specific shape such as the shape as disclosed by Rubo as modified or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.  
As to claim 5,  as best understood,  Rubo as modified further discloses the outlet (131) is present inside of the base and secured to the film pack at a same time and forms different types of second hangers.



Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rubo et al (9,327,892) in view of Propst et al (4,354,611), further in view of Wegner (4,034,926).
As to claims 2-3, as best understood, Rubo as modified further discloses the first is present at said one side of the inner surface of the cover, the second hanger is formed at one side of an inner surface of the outlet, and in another type of self-closing cap for preventing wet wipes from drying out.  However, Rubo does not specifically the first hanger in a plurality of first hangers and is connected to the elastic element and the second hanger includes a plurality of second hangers and is connected to the elastic element.  Nevertheless, Wegner discloses a dispenser comprises a base (12) and the lid (10), the lid is self-closed against the base (12) via multiple elastic members (28), the lid comprises two hanger member (22) and the base comprises two hanger member (24) which the elastic member can be loop to the hanger members of the first and second hanger member (Figure 1).  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first hanger and second hanger with multiple hanger member and with multiple elastic member as taught by Wegner in order to prevent a single elastic member break and cause the lid not able to function as intended, multiple hanger members and multiple elastic can maintain its function even a single one elastic member broke.


Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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.





/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736