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 .
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 9-16 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a fourth protrusion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, which only claims first and second protrusions, but does not claim a third protrusion, thus making the leap to a fourth protrusion unclear. The claims have been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a second protrusion" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 13, there is no mention of “a first protrusion” prior to the mentioning of a “second” protrusion. The claims have been examined below as best the Examiner can understand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo et al. (US 20240017468) (hereinafter Koo) (see attached specification translation).
Regarding Claim 1
Koo teaches a container for cosmetics (below – Fig. 3, 4, 6, and 7), the container comprising: an outer cup (200) having a first receptacle in communication with an outside of the outer cup by a first opening, the first opening being defined by an axial front end of the outer cup; and an inner cup (100) being insertable in an insertion direction through the first opening into the first receptacle and being removable from the outer cup in a removing direction, the removing direction being opposite the insertion direction, the inner cup comprising a second receptacle configured to retain cosmetics, the second receptacle being in communication with an outside of the inner cup by a second opening; wherein: the outer cup comprises a recess (221), an indentation (222), and a first protrusion (232), i) the recess (221) being recessed inward from an outer wall of the outer cup in a radial direction of the container, the radial direction being substantially perpendicular to the insertion direction, and the recess being open in the removing direction so as to be in communication with the axial front end, ii) the indentation (222) being adjacent to the recess in a circumferential direction of the container and being separated from the axial front end in the removing direction by a land, and iii) the first protrusion (232) protruding outwards in the radial direction and being arranged in the indentation or at a transition from the recess to the indentation; the inner cup comprises a flange (110), a tongue (shown below – Fig. 7), a tab (shown below – Fig. 7 [outer surface]), and a second protrusion (122), i) the flange (110) surrounding the second opening and protruding outwards in the radial direction, ii) the tongue (shown below) projecting axially in the insertion direction from the flange, iii) the tab (shown below) being integrally formed with the tongue, being spaced apart from the flange in the insertion direction by a gap, and protruding from the tongue in the circumferential direction, and iv) the second protrusion (122) protruding inwards in the radial direction (via the thickness of the protrusion) from the tab or the depression being recessed outwards in the radial direction in the tab; and the inner cup is engageable with the outer cup by an engagement of the first and second protrusions or the first protrusion and the depression (Paragraphs [0029]-[0082]).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
243
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tab
(outer surface))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (tongue)]
PNG
media_image3.png
306
415
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
228
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4
Koo teaches the inner cup (200) is disposable and the outer cup (100) is reusable (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 5
Koo teaches the inner cup (200) is engageable with the outer cup (100) by rotation in the circumferential direction, when viewing the container in the insertion direction.
Regarding Claim 6
Koo teaches the inner cup (100) comprises a third protrusion (140) on its outer wall and adjacent to the flange (110), the third protrusion protruding outwards in the radial direction; the third protrusion is made from a flexible material; and an outer diameter of the inner cup at the third protrusion is larger than an inner diameter of the first opening (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 7
Koo teaches the outer cup (200) comprises at least two recesses (221), two indentations (222), and two first protrusions (232); and the inner cup comprises at least two flanges (i.e. two semi-circular portions of 110), two tongues (shown above), two tabs (shown above), and two second protrusions or depressions (122).
Regarding Claim 8
Koo teaches the tongues (shown above) have dimensions in the insertion direction and in the circumferential direction sufficiently large to be grippable by a user so as to serve as a designated gripping portion.
Regarding Claim 9
Koo teaches the outer cup (200) comprises an additional protrusion (212) configured to engage with a cap (300); and the additional protrusion is located adjacent to the recess (221), the indentation (222), and the first protrusion (232) in the circumferential direction, and overlaps, in the insertion direction, the recess, the indentation, and the first protrusion, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 10
Koo teaches the additional protrusion (212) is an external thread.
Regarding Claim 11
Koo teaches the additional protrusion (212) overlaps the recess (221), the indentation (222), and the first protrusion (232) in the insertion direction, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 12
Koo teaches the outer cup (200) comprises a neck (210) in which the first opening is formed, and the additional protrusion (212), the recess (221), the indentation (222), and the first protrusion (232) are arranged on the neck, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 13
Koo teaches a method for releasably coupling an outer cup and an inner cup of a container, the method comprising: providing the inner cup (100) and the outer cup (200); inserting the inner cup into the outer cup in an insertion direction through a first opening of the outer cup until a flange (110) of the inner cup abuts an axial front end of the outer cup; and rotating the inner cup in an engagement direction until an inner protrusion (122) of the inner cup is arranged beyond an outer protrusion (232) of the outer cup in the engagement direction (Paragraphs [0086]-[0089]).
Regarding Claim 14
Koo teaches the inserting of the inner cup (100) includes elastic deformation of the inner cup.
Regarding Claim 15
Koo teaches the rotating is performed in a clockwise direction, when the container is viewed in the insertion direction; and/or by gripping at least two tongues (shown above) of the inner cup (200).
Regarding Claim 16
Koo teaches the rotating of the inner cup (100) until the inner protrusion (122) is arranged beyond the outer protrusion (232) in the engagement direction and performing an uncoupling of the outer cup (200) and the inner cup (100).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coeur et al. (US 2024/0245195) (hereinafter Coeur).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Koo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Koo further teaches at least one of the inner cup, the tongue, and the tab or the second protrusion is made from a flexible material (Paragraph [0061]). However, Koo does not specifically teach at least one of the inner cup, the tongue, and the tab or the second protrusion is made from a flexible material, preferably from a plastic material, even more preferably from polypropylene; or the outer cup is made from a rigid material, preferably from a glass material.
Coeur teaches a container for cosmetics (below – Fig. 1), the container comprising: an outer cup (2) having a first receptacle in communication with an outside of the outer cup by a first opening, the first opening being defined by an axial front end of the outer cup; and an inner cup (3) being insertable in an insertion direction through the first opening into the first receptacle and being removable from the outer cup in a removing direction, the removing direction being opposite the insertion direction, the inner cup comprising a second receptacle configured to retain cosmetics, the second receptacle being in communication with an outside of the inner cup by a second opening; wherein the inner cup (3) is made from polypropylene; and the outer cup (2) is made from a glass material (Paragraphs [0046], [0080], [0081]).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Koo and Coeur are analogous inventions in the field of containers for cosmetics having inner and outer cups. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the materials of the inner and outer cups of Koo with the teachings of an inner cup made of polypropylene and an outer cup made from a glass material in order to allow the inner cup to be recycled while having an outer container made from a luxury material (Paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 29 September 2025
Prosecution Insights