DETAILED ACTION 1. This office action is a response to an application filed 10/27/2023 in which claim 9 has been amended in a preliminary amendment filed 10/27/2023. Claims 1-11 in the application are pending and currently being examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2023 & 09/26/2025 being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation 5 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ fragile member ” in claims 1, 5, 7-9 & 11; “ penetrating member ” in claims 1 & 4; “ engaging member ” in claim 3; “engaged member” in claim 3; “ wall member ” in claim 7; “ storage space forming unit ” in claims 1-4 & 9-10; “ transfer unit ” in claims 4 & 6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6 . 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. 7 . Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 1, line 6 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 1 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 5, line 2 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 5 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 7, line 2 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 7 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 7, line 3 recites “thin” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “thin” as any thickness. To correct this problem, amend claim 7 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 8, line 2 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 8 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 9, lines 4 & 7 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 9 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As regards to claim 11, lines 2 & 4 recites “fragile” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “fragile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “fragile” as any material. To correct this problem, amend claim 11 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2-11 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1. Claim Rejections 8 . 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 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. 9 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 1 0 . The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 1 1 . Claims 1- 7 & 9- 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano (JP 2018-188179 A) hereinafter Hirano (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Hirano are included between parentheses). Regarding claim 1, the recitation “ by being pressurized with a penetrating member in order to form an access path, the penetrating member being configured to pressurize the storage space such that the processing liquid is discharged from the discharge port, and the penetrating member being advanced into the storage space forming unit through the access path ”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hirano since Hirano meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being pressurized with a penetrating member in order to form an access path, the penetrating member being configured to pressurize the storage space such that the processing liquid is discharged from the discharge port, and the penetrating member being advanced into the storage space forming unit through the access path , if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and i ntended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115. As regards to claim 1, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , comprising: a storage space forming unit (10) in which a storage space (see fig 2-6) storing therein a processing liquid configured to process a substrate is formed ([0013]-[0014]; [0017]-[0018]; [0020]-[0025]; fig 1-6) ; a discharge port (19) of the processing liquid, provided in the storage space forming unit (10) ([0013]-[0014]; [0017]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; fig 1-6) ; and a fragile member (31) provided in the storage space forming unit (10) and capable of be ing broken by being pressurized with a penetrating member (23a) in order to form an access path ( vertical path through container 1, see [0032]; fig 9) , the penetrating member (23a) being configured to pressurize the storage space (see fig 2-6) such that the processing liquid is discharged from the discharge port (19) , and the penetrating member (23a) being advanced into the storage space forming unit (10) through the access path (vertical path through container 1, see [0032]; fig 9) ([0013]-[0014]; [0017]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10) . As regards to claim 2, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the discharge port (19) is opened downwards (see fig 1-10) , and the container (1) further comprises a lower cover (2) allowed to be attached to and detached from the storage space forming unit (10) , and configured to close the discharge port (19) from below when attached to the storage space forming unit (10) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; fig 1- 10 ) . As regards to claim 3, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the storage space forming unit (10) has an engaging member (49) , and the lower cover (2) has an engaged member (21a) to be engaged with the engaging member (49) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; [0033]; fig 1- 10 ) . Regarding claim 4, the recitation “ a transfer unit, the transfer unit having the penetrating member and being configured to transfer the storage space forming unit ”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Hirano since Hirano meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having a transfer unit, the transfer unit having the penetrating member and being configured to transfer the storage space forming unit , if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and i ntended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115. As regards to claim 4, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the storage space forming unit (10) comprises a container main body (18) provided with the discharge port (19) , and an upper cover (5) allowed to be attached to and detached from the container main body (18) , and the upper cover (5) has a seal surface (112) configured to seal an inside of the storage space forming unit (10) , in which the access path is formed (vertical path through container 1, see [0032]; fig 9) , by being brought into firm contact with a transfer unit (21) , the transfer unit (21) having the penetrating member (23a) and being configured to transfer the storage space forming unit (10) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; [0032]-[0036]; fig 1- 10 ) . As regards to claim 5, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the fragile member (31) is provided in contact with the upper cover (5) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; [0032]-[0036]; fig 1- 10 ) . As regards to claim 6, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein, on a side surface (see fig 1-3) of the container main body (18) below the upper cover (5) , a protrusion (49) which protrudes toward an outside of the container main body (18) and which is integrally molded with the side surface (see fig 1-3) is formed along a circumferential direction of the container main body (18) so as to be gripped by the transfer unit (21) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0028]; [0033]; fig 1- 10 ) . As regards to claim 7, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein a recess ( 191 ) is locally provided in contact with the fragile member (31) , and a bottom portion (see fig 1-10) of the recess ( 191 ) is formed as a thin wall member (see fig 9 ) whose thickness is smaller than that of a portion outside the recess ( 191 ) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10) . As regards to claim 9, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , further comprising: an inner cover (32) configured to partition a space surrounded by the storage space forming unit (10) into an upper space (above, see fig 5 & 7-10) facing the fragile member (31) and a lower space (below, see fig 5 & 7-10) forming the storage space (see fig 2-6) , wherein a through hole (see fig 9b, through hole allowing 23a to pass) is formed at a portion of the inner cover (32) not overlapping the fragile member (31) when viewed in a plan view, the through hole (see fig 9b, through hole allowing 23a to pass) allowing the upper space (above, see fig 5 & 7-10) and the lower space (below, see fig 5 & 7-10) to communicate with each other ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10) . As regards to claim 10, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein an outer peripheral surface (see fig 7 & 9, outer peripheral edges) of the inner cover (32) has a contact portion (see fig 5 & 7-10) in contact with an inner peripheral surface (see fig 7 & 9, outer peripheral edges) of the storage space forming unit (10) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10) . As regards to claim 11, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the upper cover (5) has a first surface (111) including being in contact with the fragile member (31) , and the inner cover (32) has a second surface (top of 32, (see fig 5 & 7- 10) facing the first surface (111) including, and a region (see fig 5 & 7-10) of the second surface (top of 32, see fig 5 & 7-10) facing the fragile member (31) is protuberated so as to be located closer (see fig 5 & 7-10) to the first surface (111) than a surrounding area (see fig 5 & 7-10) ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 1 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 of this title, 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. 1 3 . The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 1 4 . Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano as applied to claim 1 above . As regards to claim 8, Hirano discloses a container (1) (abs; fig 1-10) , wherein the fragile member (31) has a breaking strength that can be measured in N, and a breaking displacement that can be measured in mm ([0010]-[0014]; [0016]-[0018]; [0020]-[0033]; fig 1-10), however Hirano does not disclose ranging from 5 N to 40 N, and a breaking displacement of 4 mm or less . Although Hirano does not explicitly disclose the claimed breaking strength and breaking displacement , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Hirano to have the breaking strength and breaking displacement recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the breaking strength and breaking displacement (relative dimensions) are considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the breaking strength and breaking displacement . Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Conclusion 1 5 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references. 16 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7423 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1295 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Jethro M. Pence/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1717