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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
A “discharge unit” is recited twice (lines 6-7 and lines 7-9).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6, 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The claim recites “The liquid content-discharging container” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “a nozzle coupled to one side of the button and formed in the nozzle with a discharge port” in lines 13-14. This is unclear as it appears to recite a nozzle formed in itself. For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted to recite a nozzle and a discharge port formed in the nozzle.
The claim recites “the second sealing portion . . . comes into close contact with or is spaced apart from the sealing blade by the reciprocating movement of the opening/closing unit” in lines 33-36. It is unclear if the underlined portion of the limitation is intended to recite alternative relationships between the components (i.e., the second sealing portion may contact the sealing blade or be spaced apart from it during operation) or to further define the structure by reciting two sequential positions of the opening/closing unit during operation.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites limitations that are almost identical to the limitations in lines 37-39 of claim 1. It is unclear whether/how Applicant intends claim 8 to further limit claim 1, considering there are only minor differences in language (reciting “the sealing blade of the button” in line 2, and omitting “formed in a ring shape” from claim 1).
In light of the above indefiniteness issues, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagin et al. (US 2006/0255072) in view of Albini et al. (US 5,558,258).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hagin et al. disclose a liquid content-discharging container (Fig. 2) comprising: an inner container (2 with 10) for accommodating a liquid content (Paragraph 0044); an outer container (11a) surrounding an exterior of the inner container (Fig. 2); a shoulder (11b) coupled to the outer container (Paragraph 0056, Fig. 2); a discharge unit (3) installed inside the shoulder and connected to the inner container to discharge the liquid content (Paragraphs 0048, 0056; Fig. 2); a button (19) connected to one side of the discharge unit to operate the discharge unit (Paragraph 0059) and having a discharge passage formed inside the button (Fig. 2); a nozzle coupled to one side of the button (left side of button in Fig. 2) and formed with a discharge port (14); and an opening/closing unit (7) located within an interior of both the button and the nozzle (Fig. 2) to simultaneously open/close the discharge port and the discharge passage while reciprocating due to a discharge pressure of the liquid content (Paragraph 0047). Hagin et al. further disclose that the opening/closing unit includes an opening/closing rod (main body of valve 7, Fig. 2) reciprocating back and forth by the discharge pressure of the liquid content (Paragraph 0047), and an elastic member (7b; not labeled in Fig. 2, but visible at right side of valve 7) for providing elasticity to the opening/closing rod (Paragraph 0047).
Hagin et al. fail to disclose a sealing blade formed in the discharge passage of the button, and do not explicitly disclose that the opening/closing rod of the opening/closing unit includes a first sealing portion, a second sealing portion, a fitting portion, or a guide blade.
Albini et al. teach a button (1, Figs. 1-3) with a sealing blade (8) coming into close contact with an outer circumference of a reciprocating opening/closing unit (13 with 17), and that the sealing blade of the button protrudes from an inner wall of the discharge passage (8 protrudes from the inner wall of the button cavity in which fluid is discharged), being formed in a ring shape inclined at a predetermined angle in a discharge direction of the liquid content (it is apparent from the figures that a portion of the blade forms a conical shape around the hole in which the opening/closing unit slides, thus forming an inclined surface; see annotated Fig. 1 below). Albini et al. teach that this configuration enables a sealed sliding motion of an opening/closing unit to allow opening and closing of a discharge port (7; see the Abstract).
Albini et al. further teach that the opening/closing unit is an opening/closing rod that includes a first sealing portion (tip of 17) for sealing a discharge port (see Fig. 1; tip of 17 pressed against 6, blocking port 7), a second sealing portion (body of 13) for sealing a discharge passage (see Figs. 1-3; flow from 4 towards 7 is blocked until a gap is created; Col. 4, lines 11-15), a fitting portion (inner cavity of 13) fitted to the elastic member (Figs. 1-3), and a guide blade (14) protruding from an outer circumference of the opening/closing rod to come into close contact with an inner wall of the discharge passage (Col. 3, lines 30-33), and that the second sealing portion has a diameter relatively larger than a diameter of the first sealing portion (13 larger than 17; see Fig. 1) and comes into close contact with or is spaced apart from the sealing blade by the reciprocating movement of the opening/closing unit (at 18; see Figs. 1-3; see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above). Albini et al. teach that this configuration allows a fluid to be dispensed in finely atomized form at high pressure and avoids the accumulation of dried fluid at the discharge port (Col. 4, lines 15-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of Hagin et al. with a sealing blade and an opening/closing rod with a first sealing portion, a second sealing portion, a fitting portion, and a guide blade, as taught by Albini et al., in order to support the opening/closing unit at the end nearest to the discharge port and to improve sealing of the port, as well as to improve atomization of the dispensed product.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Albini et al., annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Hagin et al. further disclose that the inner container includes a pouch container having a shape changed when the liquid content accommodated in the pouch container is consumed (inner container 2 has a collapsible film bag, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 6, Hagin et al. further disclose that the discharge unit includes a pump (3) for pumping the liquid content accommodated in the inner container (Paragraphs 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 9, Hagin et al. further disclose that the button and the discharge unit are connected to each other through a connection unit (stem of piston 5 extending above pump 3, Fig. 2) including a connection path (9).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagin et al. in view of Albini et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizushima et al. (JP 2003192067). All references to the written description of JP 2003192067 contained herein are made to the attached machine translation into English: JP2003192067-MT.
Regarding claim 3, Hagin et al.-Albini et al. in combination disclose the liquid content-discharging container of claim 1, as described above. Hagin et al. further disclose that the inner container includes a soft receiving portion (collapsible film bag of 2) in which the liquid content is accommodated, and a hard coupling portion (rigid lid 10) joined to the receiving portion (Paragraph 0048). Hagin et al. do not disclose that the coupling portion is joined to the receiving portion so as to be coupled to the shoulder. Instead, Hagin et al. disclose a sealed connection between the coupling portion and the outer container, with the shoulder connected to the periphery of the outer container (Paragraph 0058, Fig. 2).
Mizushima et al. teach an inner container (Fig. 1) having a coupling portion (3) joined to a receiving portion (1) so as to be coupled to a shoulder (6, Paragraph 0012). Mizushima et al. further teach that the coupling portion is connected around the periphery of the upper edge of the outer container to seal the upper opening of the outer container (Paragraph 0009, Fig. 1) and that the shoulder engages the coupling portion around the outside of this connection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the coupling portion of the combined invention of Hagin et al.-Albini et al. with the connection to the outer container taught by Mizushima et al. as an alternative sealed connection between the inner container and the outer container. Doing so would result in the shoulder being directly coupled to the coupling portion, rather than the outer container, as disclosed by Hagin et al., thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Hagin et al.-Albini et al. in combination disclose the liquid content-discharging container of claim 1, as described above. As described above regarding claim 3, Hagin et al. disclose that the inner container is attached to the outer container in a sealed manner, but Hagin et al. is silent regarding the means of this attachment, and thus do not explicitly disclose a protrusion and a groove.
Mizushima et al. teach that the coupling portion (3) of the inner container is screwed to mouth of the outer container (Paragraph 0009, Fig. 1) and thus the inner container and the outer container are attached to and detached from each other by a rotational operation between the inner container and the outer container. Mizushima et al. are silent as to the details of this connection (i.e., whether it requires continuous threads or a design requiring less than one full rotation), but do note that another component is connected to the inner container via a groove and a protrusion (Paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the inner container and the outer container of the combined invention of Hagin et al.-Albini et al. with a screw-type connection, as taught by Mizushima et al., as a means of securing the containers in a sealed manner. Considering that Mizushima et al. teach a protrusion/groove connection elsewhere on the inner container, it would further be an obvious choice to employ a protrusion on the inner container and a groove on the outer container to implement this screw-type connection, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Hagin et al.-Albini et al. in combination disclose the liquid content-discharging container of claim 1, as described above. Hagin et al. further disclose a second drain hole formed in the outer container (not labeled in Fig. 2, but visible in bottom cover 17 of outer container 11a; Paragraph 0022), but do not disclose a first drain hole formed in the shoulder.
Mizushima et al. teach a liquid content-discharging container having a button (5) and a shoulder (6) that form an internal space (S), from which the container is designed to drain any water that accumulates (Paragraph 0013). Mizushima et al. teach a first drain hole (3c, Fig. 1) that connects the internal space to the interior of the outer container, which contains a second drain hole (2a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the shoulder of the combined invention of Hagin et al.-Albini et al. with a first drain hole, as taught by Mizushima et al., in order to allow any water that accumulates under the button to escape. One having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that the addition of another hole or passage in the outer container or the lid of the inner container would complete a pathway so that water introduced between the shoulder and the button sequentially passes through the first drain hole and the second drain hole and is discharged to an outside, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagin et al. in view of Albini et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knight et al. (US 2014/0312072).
Hagin et al.-Albini et al. in combination disclose the liquid content-discharging container of claim 1, as described above. Hagin et al. further disclose a detachable button stopper (18) to prevent the button from being pressed, but teach that the stopper is coupled to the shoulder (Paragraph 0057) and thus do not disclose that the stopper is coupled to an outer side of the button.
Knight et al. teach a button stopper (132, Figs. 3-6) that is detachably coupled to an outer side of a button to prevent the button from being pressed (“shaped to fit closely on top of the plunger button”; Paragraph 0090). Knight et al. further teach that the button stopper is connected to a portion shaped to cover a protruding nozzle, and includes a tamper-evidence feature (Paragraph 0088).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Hagin et al.-Albini et al. with a button stopper coupled to an outer side of the button, as taught by Knight et al., in order to enable the container to take a variety of shapes with protruding nozzles, and to utilize the tamper-evidence feature for further protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant helpfully describes the specific functions and advantages of the sealing blade of the instant application (Remarks, pages 5-6), and argues that the “structure and advantages by the sealing blade (52a) are not disclosed or taught by any of the cited references” (Remarks, page 7, first full paragraph). Examiner acknowledges the distinctions between the illustrated structures of the instant application and that of Albini et al., but maintains that the combination of Hagin et al. and Albini et al. meet the limitations of the independent claim of the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that some features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sealing blade forming a “double seal” and a “gap” created between the rod and the sealing blade; Remarks, page 6, first two paragraphs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner also notes that some features upon which the applicant relies (i.e., the sealing blade creates a “uniform sealing pressure” via a ring shape, “is inclined at an angle in the direction of flow,” and wipes away residual liquid from the rod; see Remarks, page 6, last three paragraphs) are explicitly or implicitly disclosed in Albini et al., as referenced in the above rejections and/or apparent from the figures. Applicant appears to base these arguments on a comparison of the sealing blade of the instant application with only the tubular wall (18) of Albini et al., rather than the whole sealing blade (8). The rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above has been supplemented with an annotated figure to clarify how the structure of Albini et al. meets the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754