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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numerals 123a, 123b, 123c and 122d in Fig. 3A; and
Reference numerals 123a, 123b, 123c and 122a, 122b, 122c, 122d in Fig. 3B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaoka et al. (US 20220267059 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nagaoka teaches a liquid containing portion configured to contain liquid (paragraph [0027] and Fig. 4 element 21); an outlet portion including an outlet port configured to discharge therethrough the liquid contained in the liquid containing portion (see element 1 of labeled version of Fig. 5A below) and a protection portion configured to cover the outlet port of the outlet portion (paragraph [0029] and Fig. 5A element 22), wherein an L* value of the protection portion in CIE L*a*b* color space is 5 or more and 35 or less (paragraph [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka et al. (US 20220267059 A1) in view of Swigg (NPL source).
Regarding claim 6, Nagaoka et al. teaches a liquid containing member (Fig. 4 element 2) including a liquid containing portion configured to contain liquid (paragraph [0028] and Fig. 4 element 21), an outlet portion including an outlet port configured to discharge therethrough the liquid contained in the liquid containing portion (see element 1 of the above labeled version of Fig. 5A), and a protection portion configured to cover the outlet port of the outlet portion (Fig. 5A element 22) and a cover member configured to be attachable to and detachable from the liquid containing member and to prevent the liquid from leaking out from the outlet portion when the cover member is attached to the liquid containing member (paragraph [0029] and Fig. 5A element 23), wherein a color of a surface of the protection portion facing a back surface of a top surface of the cover member is black or gray (paragraph [0040] and Fig. 5A element 22A). But Nagaoka et al. does not teach wherein the top surface of the cover member is transparent or semi-transparent to a degree that allows the color of the surface of the protection portion to be visually recognizable from a side of the top surface of the cover member in a state where the cover member is attached to the liquid containing member. Swigg does teach wherein the top surface of the cover member is transparent or semi-transparent to a degree that allows the color of the surface of the protection portion to be visually recognizable from a side of the top surface of the cover member in a state where the cover member is attached to the liquid containing member. In view of this teaching, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagaoka et al. with Swigg as a simple substitution of one lid for a transparent lid to allow a manufacturer or consumer to see the mechanics of the lid without opening it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1 and 8 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a liquid container having all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, a protection portion and a cover member having the particular configuration recited. In particular, the prior art does not teach the correct dimensions of the thickness of the top surface of the cover member, maximum height roughness of the top surface of the cover member, and the shortest distance between the defined first and second surfaces in combination with the specific haze value of the cover member and L* value of the protection portion as recited. The specification of the application cites these values are specifically chosen to allow the container to be seen through the cover, as set forth in paragraph [0029] of the disclosure. Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and are also deemed allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagaoka et al. (US 20220016894 A1) and Takiguchi et al. (US 20200307228 A1) each teach a liquid container having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853