Patent Grant
11434051
The present invention relates to containers and their closures and is particularly applicable to consumer-sized containers and their closures for carbonated beverages or other contents under pressure.
The maximum size of the mouth, or opening, of a container with contents under pressure is principally determined by the level of pressure inside the container and the characteristics of the mechanism(s)—such as twist threads—that are used to secure the closure, or “cap,” to the container. The force on the cap induced by the pressurized contents may be calculated by the pressure inside the container (measured, for example in pounds-per-square-inch, or “psi”) multiplied by the area of the inside of the cap that is exposed to the interior of the container. For a given level of pressure, this “internal force” is thus proportional to the square of the radius of the opening of the container.
As a result of the foregoing, the opening of commercially produced screw-top beer and soda (or “pop”) bottles is constrained to be that for which twist threads of a commercially acceptable size and strength will provide enough counteracting “holding force” to hold the cap securely. Twist threads for soda or beer bottles that are commercially practical and acceptable to consumers have a maximum depth (i.e. dimension perpendicular to the container side wall) of approximately 2.5 mm. Such threads provide a certain maximum holding force. Exceeding this maximum would give rise to the possibility that a significant portion of the contents could escape and/or the cap could be dislodged from its position on the container, for any of a number of reasons. For example, the twist threads might slip and become disengaged if, for example, the cap distorted due to increased pressure—and thus increased force on the cap—resulting from the container being left in a warm car or shipping truck. Or there might be at least enough force on the inside of the cap that the sealing between the inside of the cap and the container rim could be breached and a significant portion of the contents could leak from the container. We use the word “significant” here to distinguish from the minute amounts of gas that inevitably may leak from a container over very long periods of time (years or perhaps decades). In a worst-case scenario, the cap could be dislodged, ejected from the container altogether, and sent flying.
In light of the above considerations, the opening of a screw top (typically all-aluminum) beer bottle is limited to an inner diameter of no more than about 30.5 mm. The corresponding cap has an outside diameter of about 38 mm. The pressure inside a typical beer bottle is about 30 psi. This is about 40% less than the psi inside a typical soda bottle, which is approximately 50 psi. As a result the opening of a soda bottle must be smaller than for beer, given the same twist thread capability, so that the internal force can be kept to an acceptable level. Indeed, screw top plastic soda bottles are typically limited to an opening of no more than about 22.5 mm in inner diameter, with a corresponding outside cap diameter of about 28 mm.
These constraints are commercially vexing in that it would desirable if containers for beer, soda and the like could have wider openings. For example, there is a loss of flavor/taste when one drinking a commercially-filled beverage from a relatively small opening. Such loss of flavor/taste could be reduced or eliminated if the container were have a wider opening—at least in part because it allows oxygen into the beverage as the consumer drinks.
One way to deal with this higher level of internal force could be to “beef up” the twist threads. Such twist threads would, however, have to be unacceptably large and/or unsightly for use in a consumer product. Or one might envision cap-securing mechanisms other than twist threads for containers with contents under pressure. Even if such alternatives were devised, the cap-securing mechanism might well have to be in such tight engagement with the container as to make removal extremely difficult for the consumer. Additionally, one would have to be concerned that the container and/or cap might be broken upon the application of a large force in the process of attempting to remove such a tightly secured cap. The result would be the need to “beef-up” the container—using thicker glass or metal, for example—which, disadvantageously, could add to the cost and weight of the container.
Another possibility one might envision is the use of some kind of separate securing mechanism analogous to the wire “cage” securing the cork of a Champagne bottle. Any such separate mechanism would be clumsy and/or inconvenient to remove.
The foregoing are some reasons we believe that industry has not commercialized wider-mouthed containers for carbonated beverages or other contents under pressure.
Consider, also, containers and closures for Champagne or highly carbonated sparkling wines. Here, a common closure is a cork or plastic stopper (usually referred to in either case as a “cork”) secured by a wire cage. Removing the wire cage might be somewhat of an annoyance for some. But the major issue here is that of being able to remove the cork without it flying off and/or without having some of the contents come shooting out. This task requires practice, deftness and, usually not a small degree of hand strength and, as such, is an unacceptably daunting task for many consumers.
Another concern in this realm is that the pressurized gas in a container for a beverage or other contents under pressure should not be allowed to forcibly project a twist-off cap (or other removable closure) away from the container at the moment that the cap begins to be removed (e.g. begun to be twisted off)—thereby turning the cap into a potentially dangerous projectile. To this end, it is known in the context of existing containers to implement one or more venting mechanisms to prevent this from happening. One such mechanism provided in plastic containers, for example, is to provide cuts through the twist threads on the bottle neck, thereby providing a path for escaping gases as the cap begins to be twisted off and the seal between the container rim and the cap is broken. Another mechanism, which is used for aluminum beer bottles, for example, is to provide small holes through the outside wall of the cap near its top, with such holes becoming a path for escaping gases once the cap begins to be twisted off. Yet another mechanism, sometimes applied to plastic ribbed corks used for sparkling wine, for example, is to provide vent holes between at least some of the ribs of the ribbing. As the cork begins to be pulled out of the bottle, those holes become exposed, providing a pathway for gas from the interior of the bottle, into the hollow plastic cork and out the vent holes.
These approaches are adequate to eliminate or substantially reduce the problem of the cap being forcibly projected away from the container during the opening process. However, they may, disadvantageously, disperse gases and, potentially, a certain amount of liquid spray, onto the hands of the consumer.
Our invention is directed to solving one or more of the above problems.
In accordance with the invention, a gas-tight seal for a container is provided by a combination of two cap-securing mechanisms that work interdependently. Specifically, we have recognized that one or more of the above-discussed problems are solved by a container closure that is configured to grip at least one of
a) the inside wall of the container and,
b) the outside wall of the container,
and also engage, or be engaged by, twist threads, or some other second cap-securing structure, that urges the inside of the cap (or, typically, a cap liner disposed thereon) against the rim of the container.
The configuration of the cap to grip the container is illustratively by way of a member referred to herein as the “pressure grip.”
The combination of these two cap-securing mechanisms, we have discovered, can achieve the requisite amount of cap-securing, i.e. the requisite holding force, for a pressurized beverage container, even though the cap would not reliably secure, and/or would not be leak-proof, if either of the mechanisms were used on its own. Because the twist threads (or other second cap-securing structure) are providing only a portion of the holding force, they can be of a commercially acceptable size and configuration. In particular, we envision that of the total holding force, at least 10% will be provided by the grip and at least 10% will be provided by the threads or other second cap-securing structure. Indeed, in particular commercially likely embodiments, the pressure grip may provide at least as much of the total holding force as the twist threads, i.e., at least 50%, depending on the internal pressure and the inner diameter of the opening of the container which, in turn, determine the internal force and thus, the required holding force.
(For convenience, this description talks in terms of the holding forces provided by the twist threads and the pressure grip but it will be recognized that the holding forces that hold the cap in place are actually downward and lateral forces (assuming the container is standing with the cap upward) that are exerted ON the container wall and twist threads by the cap in response to the upwardly directed inner force that the pressurized gas applies to the inside top of the cap. Since the twist cap and pressure grip exert forces on the container that are equal in magnitude to the holding forces applied thereto by the container, there is no harm in talking in the terms of it being the twist threads and pressure grip that provide the holding forces.)
A further requirement of any container closure is that the amount of effort required to open the container will be at a level that is commercially acceptable. Advantageously, the level of gripping provided by the pressure grip of our invention can be made quite high and yet the amount of effort required to remove the cap can be within commercially acceptable limits because the twist threads, in addition to helping to hold the cap on, also serve to aid the consumer in overcoming the resistance to removal engendered by the pressure grip. Without the threads, in particular, the pressure grip would have to be tugged on to be removed, which could be awkward and difficult to do.
In embodiments where the pressure grip grips, or binds to, the outside wall of the container, it is referred to herein as an “outer pressure grip.” In embodiments where the pressure grip grips, or binds to, the inside wall of the container, it is referred to herein as an “inner pressure grip.”
The pressure grip may be in the form of a ring, puck or other shape, depending on whether it is an inside pressure grip or outside pressure grip and depending on such factors as how much of the cap-securing task is desired to be provided by the pressure grip and how much by the twist threads or other second cap-securing structure. The pressure grip may be rigid or flexible and/or may be gas-filled. The pressure grip shape, dimensions, frictional coefficient and other characteristics are selected, as will be readily determinable by one skilled in the art, based on a) the level of force on the cap (as created by such factors as the volume of contents, amount of carbonation or other pressure-producing contents, shape of the container, diameter of the opening, ambient temperature, etc.) and b) the amount of cap-securing provided by the twist threads or other second cap-securing structure. As already noted, the pressure grip provides more of the cap-securing power than the twist threads in particular embodiments.
If the pressure grip is an outer pressure grip, particular embodiments may have a separate cap liner on the inside of the cap that twist threads will push the container rim up against so as to seal the contents within the container. If the pressure grip is an inner pressure grip, the pressure grip in particular embodiments can be configured to incorporate and/or perform the function of the cap-liner.
Particular ones of our embodiments use vent holes and/or thread cuts—as in the prior art discussed above—as a mechanism for releasing the pressurized gases before the cap is fully disengaged from the container. Indeed, in some embodiments the vents are disposed in the cap, as is known in the prior art.
In other embodiments, however, venting is achieved based on the configuration of the pressure grip. For example, in some embodiments the pressure grip may contain vent holes as part of an overall path for the release of pressurized gas to the outside atmosphere—illustratively through the bottom of the cap—when the cap is first begun to be removed. In other embodiments, the pressure grip may have scallops, tubes, channels or some structure other than holes as part of that path.
Our venting arrangements wherein the pressure grip is configured to provide, or allow for, part of the venting, as just described, can be implemented apart from our dual cap-securing mechanism invention. That is, one might choose to implement such venting without the pressure grip providing much, if any, real cap-securing functionality. This might be the case if it were found that—for a given container configuration and/or amount of pressure within the container—the cap could be satisfactorily secured with just twist threads, for example. The pressure grip would, in such a case, not be a pressure grip, per se, but only a vehicle for venting.
First through sixteenth embodiments of the invention are shown in
Specifically, each embodiment comprises a container 30 and a closure, or cap, 10 for the container. In these embodiments the container is sized to be a consumer product containing a beverage that the consumer can either consume directly by drinking from the container or can pour out into a glass or other drinking vessel. The beverage (not shown in the FIGS.) is illustratively soda, beer, sparkling wine or some other beverage under gas pressure when sealed within the container.
The diameter of cap 10 is illustratively 66 mm in the depicted embodiments. The different FIGS. may not be drawn to the same scale as one another, but each FIG. within itself is drawn to scale. Therefore other dimensions of the caps and of the containers shown herein can be determined by determining the ratio between 66 mm and the cap diameter as measured on an individual one of the FIGS., and then multiplying that ratio by other measurements measured on that same FIG.
Given a particular container width or diameter, its height may be anything appropriate to accommodate a desired amount of beverage, such as the standard 12-16-24- and 40-oz sizes for beer and/or soda or the standard 3/16 L, ⅜ L, ¾ L (or larger) sizes for sparkling (or still) wine.
The container of each embodiment has a top end, or rim, 32, a bottom end 34, at least one cylindrical sidewall 36 that forms a cavity 38 defined by the interior surface of the sidewall and bottom end 34, and twist threads 42 on sidewall 36 onto which twist threads 20 in the cap are twisted when the cap is affixed to the container. Additionally, the reference numeral 44 is used to designate gases releasing from the container at the moment when the cap begins to be twisted off.
The cap of each embodiment has a top end 12 that covers the rim of the container opening when the cap is in place on the container, and bottom end 14, at least one sidewall 16, an interior surface 18, twist threads 20 which thread onto twist threads 42 of the container when the cap is affixed thereto and a cap liner 26 against which the container rim 32 is urged when the cap is in the fully-twisted-on position. Cap liner 26 is illustratively a resilient member of conventional design affixed to the inside bottom of the cap.
Each cap also has a pressure grip 22, at least a portion of which is in contact with the sidewall of the container. In the first embodiment (
In each of the embodiments wherein the pressure grip is an inner pressure grip, cap liner 26 is integral with the pressure grip. It is possible, however, for cap liner 26 to be a physically separate element.
The pressure grip is in binding contact with the container—illustratively in contact with either the outside of the container near the container opening (in the case of an outside pressure grip) or in contact with the inside of the container near the container opening (in the case of an inside pressure grip)—so that the pressure grip presses against the container wall and, with the twist threads or other second cap-securing structure, keeps the cap in place and ensures that there is no leaking of liquid and/or gas between the cap liner 26 container rim 32. The twist threads and the pressure grip work interdependently to keep the cap held in place. A variation would be to combine the outer and inner grip into a dual-pressure grip system where the holding power is shared between them. In this configuration, the pressure grips grip the inner and outer container wall in addition to the threads. Moreover, the twist threads serve to aid the consumer in overcoming the resistance to removal engendered by the pressure grip. Without the threads, in particular, the pressure grip would have to be tugged on to be removed, which could be awkward and difficult to do.
A particular minimum amount of torque—referred to herein as the “dislodging torque”—is required to be applied to the cap for the cap to be twisted from its initial position on the sealed container. We anticipate that in various embodiments the maximum dislodging torque will be between about 2.0 and 3.5 newton-meters, which is within the capability of most adults. If torque in an amount less than the dislodging torque is applied to the cap, the cap is prevented from being twisted from its initial position by an opposing frictional torque which is a combination of a) a first frictional torque due to friction between the pressure grip and the container, and b) a second frictional torque due to friction between the twist threads of the cap and the twist threads of the container.
Rather than talking about a dislodging torque as a way of characterizing the minimum effort required to dislodge the cap from its initial position, one can equivalently talk about the required minimum amount of total forces applied at particular locations on the cap. In the case where the second cap-securing structure is twist threads, per the illustrative embodiments, and the particular locations on the cap are at its rim—which is the conventional way that untwisting forces are applied to a twist cap—then the amount of that total force is given by the dislodging torque divided by the radius of the cap.
In the case of a container with contents under relatively high pressure (e.g. Champagne and many sparkling wines), not only does the invention eliminate the need for the consumer to engage in the additional step of removing a wire cage or the like, but removal is safer in that, as will be seen, the invention allows for a design wherein the trapped gases can escape at a time when the closure is still somewhat engaged to the container (e.g. by the twist threads), making the removal safer than, for example, when a conventional cork is removed. Such release may well be achieved with the prior art hollow cork, as described above, but that approach, disadvantageously, may require a separate metal “cage” to hold the cork in place.
Each cap and/or cap-container combination in the disclosed embodiments is further configured to allow for safe release of pressurized gas at the moment when the cap is first begun to be twisted. This may be achieved by providing vent holes in the cap (first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth, eleventh, and sixteenth embodiments—
Thus the embodiments share a number of common characteristics. In each of them, the beverage or other contents under pressure is sealed within the container when the cap is fully on—i.e. in an initial position that seals the contents in the container—by virtue of a tight engagement between rim 32 and cap liner 26. In accordance with the invention, the cap is, in turn, kept in place and leak-resistant by a combination of a) friction between a sidewall 36 surface and pressure grip 22, and b) the fact that the engagement between twist threads 42 on the container wall and twist threads 20 on the inner wall of the cap acts against forces that would tend to pull the cap upward. Another common characteristic is that each of the embodiments has an inner pressure grip 22 with an integral cap liner 26, except for the first, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth embodiments (
In each of the embodiments, the seal, or engagement, between rim 32 and cap liner 26 is opened almost immediately after the cap begins to be twisted off and, as a consequence, begins to raise up. Venting of the pressurized gases then occurs in various ways in the various embodiments.
In the first embodiment (
In the second embodiment (
In the third embodiment (
In the fourth embodiment (
In the fifth embodiment (
In the sixth embodiment (
In either of the fifth and sixth embodiments (
There are a number of advantages to the venting-through-the-pressure-grip embodiments, i.e. the second, third, eighth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth embodiments—
In the seventh embodiment (
In embodiments where, it might be commercially impractical to dome the cap inward, we envision making the cap thick enough or of composite materials to prevent the cap from bulging.
Our venting arrangements wherein the pressure grip is configured to provide, or allow for, part of the venting, as just described, can be implemented without the pressure grip providing much, if any, friction against the container wall. This might be the case if it were found that—for a given container configuration and/or amount of pressure within the container—the cap could be satisfactorily held with just twist threads, for example. The pressure grip would, in such a case, not be a pressure grip, per se, but only a vehicle for venting.
Tables 1 through 4 provide some numerical illustrations. The computations shown are estimates based on information at hand, but well demonstrate the effectiveness of the present invention in permitting the containerization of soda, beer, sparkling wine or other contents under pressure for consumer sale in containers having significantly wider openings than has been achieved by the industry to this point.
Table 1, in particular, shows how much of a contribution to the holding force is needed to be provided by the pressure grip for various container opening sizes assuming an internal pressure of 30 psi—the typical pressure for beer.
Columns A through E show various container opening dimensions measured either in millimeters (mm), inches (in) or square inches (sq. in), as indicated. In each case, and throughout this specification, any dimension related to an opening—radius, diameter, circumference, area, etc.—is the inside dimension rather than, for example, the dimension across the top of the container which would include the width of the container wall and would be regarded as an outside dimension. Column B shows the opening diameter for various container openings, while column A shows the corresponding cap outside diameter. Other than the commercially marketed 38 mm cap size, the other cap sizes are approximated likely sizes for the various listed container opening diameters. It is, of course, the latter that is more relevant to the computations shown since the container opening diameter determines the area to over which the internal force is applied. Column C shows the radius of the opening. Column D shows the area of the opening, based on the radius shown in column C. Column E shows the circumference of the container opening.
Columns F through H show various force calculations, measured in pounds (lb) and rounded off to an integer value. (Any apparent discrepancies in the computations are due to such round-off.)
In particular, Column F shows the minimum holding force that can be expected to be provided by the twist threads, calculated in the manner discussed below. Column G shows the total internal force on the cap, which is given by the internal pressure of 30 psi multiplied by the area of the opening, that area also being the area of the inside of the top of the cap that is impinged upon by the gas inside the container. Column H shows the minimum holding force required to be provided by the pressure grip, which is the difference between the total internal force (column G) and the twist thread holding force (column F). Column I shows the percentage contribution to the overall holding force that is provided by the pressure grip (column H divided by column G).
Consider the container opening of 30.5 mm shown in the first line of the table. This is the opening of the most common currently marketed aluminum screw top beer bottle (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the “standard aluminum beer bottle”). For this container opening and pressure, the internal force is 34 lb. Existing commercially acceptable threads provide at least that level of holding force and thus no contribution from any pressure grip is needed. By the same token, the present inventors have been informed by packaging engineers responsible for the design and manufacture of currently marketed aluminum screw top beer bottles that this is the maximum size that is commercially viable with threads alone.
The remaining lines of the table show computations for other container openings in increments of 1.0 mm. The amount of holding force provided by the twist threads for the various container openings has been approximated in Table 1 by recognizing that that holding force is proportional to the total length of the twist threads and thus is proportional to the circumference of the container at the location of its twist threads which is, in turn, proportional to the opening's diameter (or radius). Thus if we make the simplifying assumption that the threads of the standard aluminum beer bottle provide just enough holding force to withstand the 34 lb of internal force, we can compute the holding force provided by the twist threads for containers with larger openings, as shown in the rest of column F, by linearly scaling up from 34 lb by a factor given by the ratio of an opening's circumference to the 3.77 in circumference of the standard aluminum beer bottle's 30.5 mm opening.
The internal force increases, however, in portion to the square of the opening's radius. Thus the increase in thread holding force at larger container openings is outstripped by the increase in the internal force. As noted above, the necessary additional holding force supplied by the pressure grip is shown in column H, along with an indication of the pressure grip's percentage contribution to the overall holding force in column I.
Columns J through M show calculations related to holding forces that can be expected to be provided by various conformations of pressure grips. In particular, we have carried out calculations establishing the holding force provided by two plastic pressure grips (or “stoppers”) currently in commercial use for sparkling wine bottles with an 18 mm opening—one in use for contents under 60 psi of pressure and one at 90 psi. These are referred to in Table 1 as Grip I and Grip III. In carrying out our computations, we computed the internal force on the sparkling wine bottle pressure grip and, further, recognized that the holding capability of the pressure grip is a function of the contact area between the pressure grip and the inside of the bottle opening. The computation shows that Grips I and III respectively provide a minimum of 10.63 and 15.94 lb of holding force per inch of bottle opening circumference. Multiplying 10.63 and 15.94 by the circumference shown in column E yields the minimum holding force that could be relied on to be provided by such pressure grips for the various openings, as shown in columns J and L. Since the holding force is proportional to the contact area between the pressure grip and the inside of the bottle opening, halving the depth of a pressure grip (i.e. its vertical dimension per the orientation in the FIGS.) would yield a pressure grip having approximately half as much holding force. The holding force that would be provided by pressure grips like Grips I and III but having half the depth of those grips is shown in columns K and M, respectively for pressure grips that referred to herein as Grips II and IV, respectively.
Many of the pressure grips that might be used in accordance with the present invention are configured differently from the plastic pressure grips (or “stoppers”) that the computations of columns J through M are based on. Thus the holding forces provided by such other pressure grips would not necessarily be the same as those that Table 1 shows. But the computations shown in columns J through M establish that it is well within the capability of existing materials and technology for one to design pressure grips having the requisite pressure grip holding forces shown in column H. And the discussion hereinafter assumes the use of pressure grips capable of providing holding forces as shown in columns J through M.
What we can observe, then, by comparing columns J through M to the pressure grip requirement of column H, is that pressure grips with the holding capabilities of Grips II, IV, I and III would suffice for container openings up to 48.5 mm, 57.5, 66.5 mm and 84.5, respectively since the holding force provided by the grips for those or smaller openings is at least as great as the pressure-grip-required contribution shown in column H.
As noted above, the calculations shown in Table 1 make the simplifying assumption that the twist threads of the standard aluminum beer bottle provide only the minimum holding force required to counteract the assumed internal force of 34 lb. In reality, of course, container closures must be designed with enough of a “safety factor” to take into account any number of other factors including manufacturing variabilities and the fact that the internal pressure will rise with temperature. As a result, the actual holding force that can be provided by the twist threads of the standard aluminum beer bottle is some designed-in multiple of the nominal internal force of 34 lb. Thus the twist thread holding forces shown for not only the 30.5 mm opening, but also twist thread holding forces for the other containers in Table 1—which are scaled up from that of the container having a 30.5 mm opening—would be greater than that shown in the table by the aforesaid designed-in multiple. If the safety factor were to be 2.5, for example, then the actual holding force provided by the twist threads for containers having 30.5, 31.5 and 32.5 mm openings would be 85, 87.5 and 90 lb, respectively.
Similar considerations apply to the holding forces that Table 1 lists for the various possible pressure grips. Meaning that the actual holding force that can be provided by the 60 psi and 90 psi pressure grips that form the basis of the computations shown in columns J through M is actually some designed-in multiple of the 10.63 and 15.94 lb per circumferential inch holding force that we computed for Grips I and III.
Assuming that the same safety factor were used for both the twist threads and pressure grips, the pressure grip's percentage contribution to holding force would still be as shown in the table and the same pressure grips that we found to be appropriate for a given container opening per the analysis of Table 1 would still apply.
Thus by way of example, assume a safety factor of 2.5 for the twist threads and consider the container opening of 48.5 mm., the internal force that we would be designing for would be 215 lb (=2.5×86 lb). The twist threads should be capable of providing 135 lb (=2.5×54 lb) of holding force, leaving 80 lb of holding force needing to be provided by the pressure grip. The percentage of holding force provided by the pressure grip is still 37% (=80/215). Moreover, assuming that the pressure grips were also designed with a safety factor 2.5, we would still be able to use a pressure grip with the capabilities of Grip II because its actual holding force would meet the needed 80 lb (=2.5×32 lb).
This “safety factor” discussion also applies to the computations presented in Tables II, III and IV discussed below.
The data in Table 2 is similar to that of Table 1 but now assumes an internal pressure of 50 psi—the typical pressure for soda. A container opening of 22.5 mm is the industry standard for plastic soda bottles and the calculations of Table 2 assume that the twist threads provide 31 lb of holding force—just enough to counteract the 31 lb of internal pressure on a cap for an opening of that size with 50 psi of internal pressure. The calculations otherwise follow the same algorithms as in Table 1 and the pressure grip capabilities are the same as assumed for Table 1. It may thus be noted that at this internal pressure level, pressure grips having the holding capabilities of Grips II, IV, I and III, could be used with up to 32.5 mm, 38.5 mm, 43.5 mm and 54.5 mm openings, respectively.
Table 3 shows the same kind of data but illustrating a design approach wherein the amount of holding force supplied by the pressure grip is taken as the starting point and it is then determined how much additional holding force would be needed to be supplied by twist threads. In particular, the container opening of 18 mm—shown in the first line of Table 3—is the size for currently marketed bottles of Champagne and other sparkling wines. For this size of opening and an assumed pressure of 60 psi, the internal force is 24 lb. (Also, the cap outside diameter is larger than for a beer or soda container for a given opening diameter because the walls of the container are larger for Champagne and many sparkling wines than for beer or soda.) Thus a holding force of at least 24 lb would need to be supplied from the pressure grip. Existing commercially plastic stoppers are capable of providing at least that level of holding force and thus no threads are needed.
For larger container openings, the amount of holding force provided by the pressure grip increases in linear proportion to the increase of the opening's circumference. The rest of the holding force is provided by twist threads. Analogously to the way in which we considered the capabilities of existing plastic pressure grips (“stoppers”) in the computations of Tables 1 and 2, we here have considered the capabilities of the twist threads of the standard aluminum beer bottle and the standard plastic soda bottle—referred to in Table 3 as Thread Styles I and III—and calculated that those threads can be relied on to provide a minimum of 9.01 lb and 11.07 lb of holding force per inch of opening circumference respectively, resulting in the computations shown in columns J and L, respectively. If we assume that halving the depth of a set of threads halves the threads' holding force, then such halved-in-depth threads as are used in the standard aluminum beer bottle and standard plastic soda bottle would have the holding force capabilities shown in columns K and M, respectively for what we refer to as Thread Styles II and IV, respectively. We thus see from Table 3 that that at this internal pressure level, thread styles II, IV, I and III could be used with up to 25 mm, 27 mm, 33 mm and 36 mm openings, respectively.
Table 4 shows similar data for an assumed pressure of 90 psi. Here we can see that at this level of pressure, thread styles II, IV, I and III could be used with up to 23 mm, 24 mm, 28 mm and 30 mm openings, respectively,
For any of these scenarios, other combinations of twist thread and pressure grip capabilities are possible. For example, returning to Table 1, if we used pressure grip I rather than pressure grip II for the 48.5 mm opening—even though the latter would be adequate—we would have a design in which 64 lb of the total required minimum holding force of 86 lb could be relied on as being provided by the pressure grip, so that only 22 lb would have to be provided by the twist threads. This would allow an aluminum beer bottle to have a smaller thread profile (depth) than currently which might enhance the attractiveness of the bottle and/or might be advantageous from a manufacturing standpoint. (By the same token, providing a pressure grip in the cap of a pre-filled wine glass product of the type disclosed in our co-pending patent application Ser. No. 13/240,194 filed Sep. 22, 2011 and Ser. No. 14/029,020 filed Sep. 17, 2013, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference as thoughtfully set forth herein, could allow the threads or other “engagement features” on the glass to be made smaller than otherwise.)
The foregoing merely illustrates the principles of the invention and many variations are possible.
For example, although all of the embodiments discussed to this point have the twist threads on the outside surface of the container, it is possible for the container's twist threads to be on the inside surface of the container. Such an embodiment is shown in
The pressure grip can take on a variety of geometric shapes. The key is that contact points on the shape would come into contact with the container wall in such a way as to provide holding power. We envision that for the most part the contact points of said geometric shapes will be arcs that correspond to segments of the container wall.
For example,
Another variation would be for the pressure grip to be in two parts comprising an outer grip portion and an inner grip portion with the required holding force being shared between them. In addition to the threads, the pressure grip portions would grip the inner and outer container wall in tandem.
Moreover, lugs could be used as the second cap-securing structure to assist the pressure grip in holding the cap in place.
It is thus anticipated that those skilled in the art will be able to devise various alternative arrangements which, although not shown or described herein, embody the principles of the invention and thus are within its spirit and scope.
This application is a Divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/146,894 filed Jan. 3, 2014 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/749,516 filed Jan. 7, 2013, the entire content of each of which is incorporated by reference herein.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2456607 | Shaffer | Dec 1948 | A |
| 2980276 | Doria | Apr 1961 | A |
| 3047177 | Poitras et al. | Jul 1962 | A |
| 3067900 | Milton | Dec 1962 | A |
| 3114467 | Montgomery | Dec 1963 | A |
| 3174641 | Kitterman | Mar 1965 | A |
| 3181720 | Cassie et al. | May 1965 | A |
| 3189210 | Heisler | Jun 1965 | A |
| 3339772 | Miller | Sep 1967 | A |
| 3589983 | Holderith et al. | Jun 1971 | A |
| 3713545 | Lawrence | Jan 1973 | A |
| 4007851 | Walker | Feb 1977 | A |
| 4076142 | Naz | Feb 1978 | A |
| 4474302 | Goldberg et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4948000 | Grabenkort | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4993572 | Ochs | Feb 1991 | A |
| 5105961 | Noren et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5433331 | Morini | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5662233 | Reid | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5685443 | Taber | Nov 1997 | A |
| 6056136 | Taber | May 2000 | A |
| 6202871 | Kelly | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6510957 | Gilley et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6568549 | Miller | May 2003 | B1 |
| 7147123 | Yamashita | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 8167161 | Ichimura | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8231019 | Battegazzore | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8342344 | Livingston | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 20040065696 | Fletcher | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20060138073 | Ooka et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060231519 | Py et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060278603 | Takashima et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070138125 | Granger | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070267381 | Schmidt et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20090293437 | Schulz et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100065528 | Hanafusa et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20110031209 | Arecco | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110068134 | Yang | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20130256306 | Dreyer et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140311256 | Cochran et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20150251887 | Glaser et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20170225851 | Wada et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20180251275 | LaPierre | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20180273253 | Shahesmaeili | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Statement Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56″ by John R. Bergida and Marvin M. Bergida. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200031533 A1 | Jan 2020 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61749516 | Jan 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 14146894 | Jan 2014 | US |
| Child | 16593266 | US |
