This invention relates to product packaging, specifically, the tamper-proofing of product containers.
Man has always required various storage containers for transporting and holding various goods such as water, wine, grains, precious metals, etc. Different goods required different types of containers (pots, bottles, etc.), but they were often large and made of heavy materials which made the cost of transportation very expensive and difficult, and, due to insufficient securities in place such as weak locks, the materials used (ivory, shellac, or rubber), lack of surveillance systems, etc., could easily be stolen, broken into, or tampered with.
The Tylenol scare in the early 1980s was an eye-opener for everyone throughout the world, especially for the manufacturers of pharmaceutical products that are taken orally. The sabotaging of eye drop products, as well as numerous other copycat product-tampering crimes, forced the public to demand safer packaging that could not be tampered with. With the onslaught of numerous lawsuits against manufacturers, companies responded with new protections (safety shrink bands, glued outer packaging cartons, tape strips, etc.) to serve as inexpensive early warning systems to let customers know if a product may have been tampered with.
Consumers have always wanted reliable, high-quantity products that are inexpensive and easy to use. The manufacturers, with the fear of lawsuits and their reputations on the line, try to accommodate the consumers in this regard while trying to make the packaging unencumbering and safe to use, all while trying to keep their manufacturing costs to a minimum. They could make their packaging safe out of heavy, expensive materials, such as steel or glass, but the costs would be prohibitive and not convenient for their customers. If they are made of cheap materials with poor designs and construction, they risk having products that may be easily tampered with. Where is the balance of safety and convenience at a reasonable cost? This is the dilemma the manufacturers face.
Back in 1841, an American portrait painter named John Rand needed containers for his messy paints, so he invented the squeezable metal tube or collapsible tube. In 1870, New Yorker Henry Palmer patented a screw-top collapsible container intended for the storage of condensed medicinal extracts. The screw-top collapsible container, collapsible tube or squeeze tube, is still very prevalent amongst today's products found in pharmacies throughout the world. They are inexpensive, lightweight, and easy to carry or transport.
In 1889, toothpaste in a tube was introduced by Johnson & Johnson. It is the most common item sold in collapsible tubes to this day and almost every household has at least a few collapsible tubes in their home. Collapsible tubes are just one of the many excellent candidates for tamper-evident containers.
A few collapsible tube closures or systems have been proposed—for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 10,435,198 to Turcotte (2019), U.S. Pat. No. 4,181,246 to Norris (1980), and Bray Pub. No.: US 2009/0065528 (2009 Mar. 12)/U.S. Provisional Pat. App No. 60/970,750, U.S. Pat. No. 9,499,313 to Zhong, et al, but they do not use a simple, cost-effective manner in which to keep potential saboteurs from perpetrating dastardly acts on product containers, many of which are pharmaceutical products to be taken orally or rubbed onto one's skin. This would include the region of the nose and mouth known as the “Danger Triangle of the Face.” These substances and medicines should carry the utmost protection from those who would want to cause harm or ill will by means of disfiguring another person's face, body, ruining their overall health, or, worse yet, the killing of the products' users.
Turcotte's patent, more or less, deals with maximizing the amount of space on the packaging, so as to increase the amount of space for advertising. Norris's “Closure for A Collapsible Tube” involves a collapsible tube container with a top which has a rotating spherical ball where the product dispenses from various ports. Bray's Tube Packaging System has the “head” lid section molded into the main body where the product is located, rather than most tube lids that are added as a second piece to the main body. Bray is going after a reduced number of components to reduce the cost of the tube, which is fine, but not if it's at the expense of the consumer's health, protection, and well-being, or the shareholders of a publicly-traded corporation with regard to the potential sabotage of the product's contents.
Zhong, et al. patent is, like many of the researched patents, very elaborate and involves a rotatable and removable cap that is mounted on a tube. It includes fixed wings, a safety outer ring, multiple safety pawls which are equally distributed on the inner side of the outer safety ring, and a ratchet tooth that, when engaged, won't allow reversible motion. Such intricate safety caps are usually cost-prohibitive to a manufacturer, and thus the customer, to whom the manufacturer would have to pass on this exorbitant cost.
The problem is that many of these products are in a competitive field, which includes generic brands once the patents expire, so the manufacturers are not in a position to pass on the high packaging costs to the customer. Many of these containers are not really tamper-evident as they are located on the outside of the container and can be taken off. There is no universal system of tamper-evident protection, so packaging varies from one product to another and this leaves the customer not knowing if there was supposed to be a tamper-evident tape or safety shrink band, etc. on the container, or not. The high-end, intricate, tamper-evident containers are cost-prohibitive and that is why many of them are not in use today. It comes down to a cost-versus-benefit analysis on the part of the manufacturers. They justify that the odds of someone tampering with their product and causing harm to someone is not likely, so they spend just enough to make the packaging safe enough to instill confidence in the customers.
Even to this day, many of the healthcare and personal hygiene consumer products are packaged in a way that is easily susceptible to sabotage. At a recent packaging trade show, it was pointed out that 30% of the safety shrink bands on packaging do not do their job as intended. They can be stretched, manipulated, or otherwise taken off without breaking off. Many containers have a cap that is screwed onto the container body. The only obstacle blocking a criminal with ill intent from slipping a foreign substance into the container is a piece of foil or paper covering the spout where the product exits. In fact, even to this day, numerous companies do not even use this foil or paper. Many people don't even check to see if the product has a piece of foil or paper protecting the contents. This would involve unscrewing the top in a retail store. How many people are going to do that? If there is no foil or paper covering the spout, how does the customer know if this is the standard operating procedure with how the manufacturer packages their product or not? Many customers assume there is nothing to be concerned about since so many manufacturers still make their products without the tamper-evident foil on the spout. Anyone who wants to do ill will can simply unscrew the cap and put a foreign substance into the container. If there is a piece of foil covering the spout, anybody could simply lift the tabs on the foil and slip in a foreign substance, or keep the foil in place without lifting the pull tabs and puncture the foil using a hypodermic needle to inject, say, an acid. Then, they could simply place a piece of foil from an identical product on top. One could probably get away with simply leaving the needle puncture mark in the foil without anyone noticing as the odds of anybody noticing would be quite small. It's a numbers game. They could use a needle on a hundred packages and maybe only a few would be discovered.
For most products, each time the product is used, the cap must be unscrewed to get to the contents and then screwed back on once the product has been dispensed. This is a waste of time played out by people across the world each day. To save time, product designers came up with the flip-up lid, but this just added another entry point for saboteurs and are mostly for slow, gel-like-viscosity products like shampoo, lotions, and toothpaste. Most product packages, including those that have a screw-on cap, and/or a flip-up lid, are susceptible to sabotage. It is in everyone's best interest, both for consumers and the manufacturers, to make sure that all consumer product containers are made tamper-evident to reduce serious illness, injury, or death.
Today's consumer product containers suffer from a number of disadvantages:
(a) They can easily be tampered with simply by unscrewing the cap from the product body and adding a foreign substance through the spout. Many stores run skeleton crews on the sales floor which allows saboteurs to easily tamper with products without being discovered.
(b) They can easily be tampered with by simply peeling back a piece of “tamper-evident” tape located at the lid opening on the outside of the cap.
(c) The foil or paper covering the spout where the product exits can simply be peeled back, taken off entirely, have a new foil placed on top of, or in place of, the original foil after the product has been sabotaged by inserting a hypodermic needle, etc.
(d) There is no consistency with product protection from one company's products to another's. That is, some companies use foil to cover their spouts and some use nothing. If they don't all use the same universal protection system (all use foil covering the spout, a tape on the outside of the cap, safety shrink band, etc.), then how does the customer really know if the product has had these “tamperproof” items removed from the container or if the manufacturer never used them to begin with? How do customers know which “tamperproof” system is being applied by the different manufacturers if any? When a customer purchases an item, it's usually one “facing”, that is, each unique item has one stock-keeping unit (SKU) on the counter shelf with the identical item directly behind it. The customer usually just picks out a product and sets it into their shopping basket or cart. He or she doesn't check to see how the other identical items lined up behind their product are protected (with a safety shrink band, outer tape, foil over the spout, etc.). The customer doesn't have the time to check every purchase they make at a store. Also, product packaging changes often, so what once may have been the product tamper-proofing system on a product, may have changed to an entirely unique tamper-proofing system the next time the customer purchases the same product.
(e) Very few of today's product containers have a clear, see-through cap and/or lid. If the customer can't see through to the spout foil (if there is one), how do they know whether the product has been tampered with, or not?
(f) Most, if not all, “tamper-evident safeguards” are located on the outside of the packaging where saboteurs have easy access to taking off, peeling back, stretching, altering, or removing these “protections” unbeknownst to the customer.
In accordance with one embodiment, a product packaging container assembly comprises a tube in a clear, see-through cap, a body with a spout, and tape.
A number of advantages of my Truly Tamper-evident Container will become evident:
(a) The Truly Tamper-evident Container is difficult to defeat because it is inside the cap, so it is safer and gives a greater sense of confidence in the product to the customer.
(b) The customer can immediately know whether the product has been tampered with, or not, simply by looking through the clear cap at the safety cape to see if it is broken or not.
(c) It is more streamlined (by approximately 10%), so it uses fewer raw materials for the manufacturer and wastes less valuable shelf space for the retailer and consumer.
(d) Time saved for the consumer who no longer has to waste time screwing on and screwing off the cap each time they use the product (which is daily in many instances).
(e) Corporations will not have nearly as many lawsuits brought against them, due to the fact that their products will be much harder to tamper with.
(f) Customers will no longer have to open the lid before purchasing to see for themselves whether the product has been tampered with.
Accordingly, several advantages of one or more aspects are as follows: to provide product packaging containers that are truly simple and tamper-evident, quick to apply, greatly reduce/avoid injury or death to the consumer, have the public trust of the products with regard to the purity of their contents/ingredients, bring about goodwill for manufacturers who are proactive in combating the sabotage of their products, increased insurance of safety, better protection from lawsuits against manufacturers, retained or increased sales of name brands and generic brands due to a higher, newfound trust of manufacturers, shows manufacturers took good-faith effort/initiative in safely securing their products for their customers, lower lawsuit costs, reduced manufacturing costs due to fewer manufacturing steps which lead to higher margins, and a smaller, more streamlined cap, with potential savings, passed on to customers. These and other advantages of one or more aspects will become apparent from a consideration of the ensuing description and drawings.
In the drawings, closely related figures have the same number but different alphabetic suffixes.
One embodiment of the Truly Tamper-evident Container is illustrated in
The cap (12) is clear and see-through which allows the customer to know immediately if the product about to be purchased has been tampered with or not. A screwless or threadless tube (26) is shown to descend vertically to an accepting screwless or threadless body neck (50). It could also be connected at a spout (16), brim, sides, or flanged top of the body. On the plateau (22) is a cap spout (48) where the product's contents, housed in the body (10), comes out.
The threadless tube (26), which is a member of the cap, is glued to the threadless body neck (50) by means of, perhaps, a heat-activated adhesive. As shown in
A flat, unfolded safety tape (
As shown in
As shown in
Accordingly, the reader will see that the Truly Tamper-evident Containers of the various embodiments are a much safer packaging system for many everyday consumer products which will have the consumers confident to use, and the manufacturers confident to make without fear of lawsuits. These containers can be produced at a nominal cost to the manufacturers who may or may not, pass on the savings to the customer. In addition, previously used methods of using tape, safety shrink band, etc., outside the cap may still be utilized as an extra layer of confidence for the customer. There will be no more inconsistencies of products where some manufacturers use foil on the cap spouts, safety shrink bands or tamper-evident tape on the outside of their containers, etc., while others do not use any such safety protection at all. There would be no more being able to unscrew the cap from the container body and then putting a foreign substance in through the spout. No more not being able to see through the cap in order to see if the foil is on properly, been tampered with, etc. A reduction in the number of injuries, deaths, and lawsuits can be expected from these new tamper-evident containers.
There is no excuse for not having a universally-accepted product container where all product packaging contains the same or nearly the same, system whereby the customer can feel confident that the product they are purchasing has not been tampered with. By having a clear, see-through container cap permanently sealed to the container body, and a folded safety tape or similar item adhered inside the cap where no saboteur can have access to it without signally to the customer that the product has been tampered with, the public and manufacturers can feel confident that no one with nefarious intent will ever easily succeed.
While the above description contains specificities, they should not be construed as limitations on the scope, but instead, as an exemplification of one or more embodiments thereof. Many more variations are possible. For instance, the container may be in many different forms of packaging, in addition to collapsible tubes. The cap may be slightly tinted, colored, or opaque. The size and shape may be different to accommodate the size of the cap, the tackiness of the tape, the placement of the safety tape attached to the foil cover an the spout, the location of the spout and crater, etc. The breakaway point (s) may be narrower or wider or be made of a different material that may be more difficult or easier to break apart than the safety tape.
There are various possibilities with regard to how the cap is connected to the body, where and how the safety tape is set within the cap, how other items such as safety shrink bands, O-rings, or other items are used to show whether or not a container lid has been opened or tampered with, etc., therefore, the scope should be determined not by the illustrated embodiments, but by the claims and their legal equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4181246 | Norris | Jan 1980 | A |
4487324 | Ostrowsky | Dec 1984 | A |
4711372 | Gach | Dec 1987 | A |
4984700 | Knickerbocker | Jan 1991 | A |
5012940 | Koehn | May 1991 | A |
5012941 | Abrams | May 1991 | A |
5036889 | Pherigo | Aug 1991 | A |
6082568 | Flanagan | Jul 2000 | A |
8439212 | Clodfelter | May 2013 | B2 |
8499950 | Win | Aug 2013 | B2 |
9199771 | Kasper | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9309032 | Berge et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9321567 | Daggett et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9340335 | Ellenkamp-Van Olst et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9402782 | Browne | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9499313 | Zhong et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9624008 | Thorstensen-Woll et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9650185 | Kieffer | May 2017 | B2 |
9701451 | Skillin et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9708105 | McPherson | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9758281 | Glaser et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9776350 | Witt | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9790011 | Rosenquist | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9815603 | Bannini | Nov 2017 | B2 |
9878831 | Danielsson et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9914576 | Konicke | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9963274 | Brunner | May 2018 | B2 |
9963281 | Bratsch | May 2018 | B2 |
10040608 | Olson et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10131477 | Robert et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10138030 | Orszullok | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10138035 | Loukov | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10196191 | Torrent Ortega | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10214325 | Rognard et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10232977 | Dahl et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10239667 | Price | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10246230 | Sangiovanni | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10259626 | Thorstensen-Woll | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10351315 | Berge | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10377540 | Borgardt et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
D859153 | Ramsuer et al. | Sep 2019 | S |
D859154 | Skillin | Sep 2019 | S |
10427822 | Viale et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10435198 | Turcotte | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10464726 | Rognard | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10486867 | Graybill et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10494159 | Kneer et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10597201 | Price | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10625912 | Schmid | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10669083 | McPherson | Jun 2020 | B2 |
D889263 | Scharf | Jul 2020 | S |
10882666 | Giraud et al. | Jan 2021 | B2 |
D909871 | Enemark | Feb 2021 | S |
10913580 | Browne | Feb 2021 | B2 |
10926923 | Berroa Garcia | Feb 2021 | B2 |
10934063 | Benoit-Gonin et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
10945508 | Wei | Mar 2021 | B2 |
10947015 | Smith | Mar 2021 | B2 |
D915199 | Berge et al. | Apr 2021 | S |
10974884 | Van Der Molen | Apr 2021 | B2 |
10994897 | Salcido Pinera | May 2021 | B2 |
11046490 | Cerveny | Jun 2021 | B2 |
11072473 | Rossi | Jul 2021 | B2 |
11091310 | Meaux et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
11186414 | Finch | Nov 2021 | B2 |
11208238 | Conaway | Dec 2021 | B2 |
11214414 | Berge et al. | Jan 2022 | B2 |
D949690 | Hiltzer et al. | Apr 2022 | S |
11383904 | Rivelli | Jul 2022 | B2 |
20010050291 | Jud | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20080047976 | Scheer | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20170015459 | Warner | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20190127133 | Rossi | May 2019 | A1 |
20190231971 | Verlaak | Aug 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210276770 A1 | Sep 2021 | US |