DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,261,216 (Becker) in view of KR 790001158 (Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Becker teaches a content container comprising:
a container part (12) configured to accommodate a content;
a cap part (30) which opens or closes the container part and in which at least one screw thread (31) is formed in a first direction; and
a coupling part (20) which is provided on one side of the container part (provided on neck 13).
Becker as applied fails to teach:
a plurality of coupling units protrude along an outer circumferential surface of the coupling part;
wherein the plurality of coupling units are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and
due to being spaced apart in the second direction, at least one first groove is formed between the plurality of coupling units in the first direction, and as the screw thread moves, the cap part is detachably coupled to the coupling part.
Examiner notes the coupling part is effectively an outer neck surface.
Kim, analogous to threaded connections, teaches:
a neck (12) outer surface wherein the plurality of coupling units (unlabeled; read as the regions between thread grooves as seen in the annotated Figure below) are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction (Examiner notes the first and second directions are “opposite” in that they are not the same; they are not read as “perpendicular”; see annotated Figure below), and
due to being spaced apart in the second direction, at least one first groove (16) is formed between the plurality of coupling units in the first direction, and as the screw thread moves, the cap part is detachably coupled to the coupling part (see right hand sequence of Figure 2, showing cap projection 24 riding in groove 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling part of Becker, providing the thread grooves of Kim, motivated by the benefit of allowing the closure to be removed with rotation in either circumferential direction, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, due to being spaced apart in the first direction, at least one second groove (Kim groove 18) forming a non-contact area with the screw thread is formed between the plurality of coupling units in the second direction.
Regarding claim 4, a bottom surface of the coupling unit has at least one of a circular shape, an elliptic shape, and a polygonal shape (the coupling unit resembles a diamond, and thus has a polygonal bottom shape resembling the tip of a triangle).
Regarding claim 5, the coupling unit has a polygonal bottom surface (the coupling unit resembles a diamond, and thus has a polygonal bottom shape resembling the tip of a triangle), and the polygonal shape has at least one side formed in the first direction to guide movement of the screw thread (Examiner notes the edge bordering thread groove 16 helps guide movement of the thread).
Regarding claim 6, Becker in view of Kim as applied above fails to teach that the bottom surface has a diamond shape, and an angle of an upper vertex thereof is in a range of 49.5° to 160°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the bottom surface of the coupling unit of Becker in view of Kim, forming it to a range of 49.5° to 160°, motivated by the benefit of providing a steeper or shallower thread decent, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, at least one entrance configured to guide an end of the screw thread to the first groove is formed between the plurality of coupling units positioned at an uppermost end by the coupling part being spaced apart in a circumferential direction (see 28 in Kim Figure 1).
4. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,261,216 (Becker) in view of KR 790001158 (Kim) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US 4,289,248 (Lynn).
Regarding claim 8, Becker in view of Kim as applied above fails to teach that the coupling part includes at least one first fixing portion formed on a lower side of the coupling unit, and the cap part includes at least one second fixing portion that is formed on a lower side of the screw thread and maintains coupling with the cap part while in contact with the first fixing portion.
Lynn (embodiment of Figures 5 and 6), analogous to threaded closures, teaches at least one first fixing portion (222) formed on a lower side of the coupling unit, and the cap part includes at least one second fixing portion (240) that is formed on a lower side of the screw thread (explicitly taught to be “disposed on at a point on the extension of the helix of the thread” in col. 5, lines 20-24; alternatively, not read to be physically connected as seen at 211 and 212 in instant Figure 2, but instead located on a side adjacent the thread) and maintains coupling with the cap part while in contact with the first fixing portion (col. 5, lines 25-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Becker in view of Kim, providing first and second fixing portions as taught by Lynn, motivated by the benefit of fixing the location of the cap in the closed position, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 9, Becker in view of Kim as applied above fails to teach that at least one of the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion is provided as the number of portions corresponding to the screw thread, and when the cap part is coupled to the coupling part, the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion come into contact with each other regardless of an initial alignment position of the cap part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Becker in view of Kim, providing a number of first and second fixing portions corresponding to the number of threads, because such is a mere duplication of the parts of the prior art, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, in a process of coupling or decoupling the cap part to or from the coupling part, the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion come into contact with each other, and thus predetermined resistance is generated between the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion (Examiner notes the resilient snapping of Lynn projection 240 past projection 222 on application, and on removal, will inherently crated a resistance).
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,261,216 (Becker) in view of KR 790001158 (Kim) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US 4,273,248 (Lehmann).
Regarding claim 11, Becker in view of Kim as applied above fails to teach that the cap part includes an inner cap in which the screw thread is formed on an inner side thereof and at least one insertion protrusion is formed on an outer side thereof and an outer cap in which at least one insertion groove corresponding to the insertion protrusion is formed in an inner side thereof and which is coupled to surround the inner cap.
Lehmann, analogous to threaded closures formed of multiple pieces, teaches a cap part including an inner cap (21) in which the screw thread (5a) is formed on an inner side thereof and at least one insertion protrusion (24) is formed on an outer side thereof and an outer cap (2) in which at least one insertion groove (25) corresponding to the insertion protrusion is formed in an inner side thereof and which is coupled to surround the inner cap (see Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Becker in view of Kim, forming the cap to comprise an inner cap including the thread and an insertion protrusion on an outer side, and an outer cap including an insertion groove on an outer side, as taught by Lehmann, motivated by the benefit of forming the closure to have a decorative outer surface, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, as a cross-sectional area of the coupling unit is decreased in a protruding direction, a contact area with the screw thread is decreased. See (300) instant Figure 2. No motivation could be found to modify the coupling units of Becker in view of Kim in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733