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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/27/2026 (hereafter “the amendment”) has been accepted and entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR200496413Y1) and further in view of Del Din (US20220211161A1)
Regarding claim 1 Lee teaches a two-part container, comprising (fig.2 shows the two-part container):
an outer container (see annotated fig.2 below for the outer container); and
an inner container (see annotated fig.2 below),
wherein the outer container includes a mouth thereof and extends in a circumferential direction (see annotated fig.2 below for the mouth and the outer surface of the outer container),
the inner container includes an accommodating portion configured to accommodate contents, an upper-end flange that extends outward from an upper end of the accommodating portion, and a hanging portion that hangs downward from an outer edge end of the upper-end flange (see annotated fig.2 below for the inner container including accommodating portion capable of contain contents and an upper end flange extending outwards from the upper end of the portion and a hanging portion that hangs downward from an outer edge of the flange),
an opening is formed in the hanging portion, and the hanging portion includes an engagement piece that extends in a longitudinal axis direction , the engagement piece being configured to elastically deform within an opening region of the opening in a view from an outer surface of the hanging portion (see annotated fig.2 below for the opening in the hanging portion, claim does not specify through opening or not, and includes a engagement piece that extends in a longitudinal axis and is capable of being elastically deforms with an opening region of the opening in a view from an outer surface of the hanging portion)
the engagement piece has a first end connecting to the hanging portion and a second end which is a free end positioned on an opposite side of the engagement piece in the longitudinal direction relative to the first end (see annotated fig.2-A below for the first end connected to the hanging portion and the second end which is a free end positioned on an opposite side of the engagement piece in the longitudinal axis relative to the first end),
while the engagement piece is in a non-contact state, the second end is positioned radially inward relative to the first end by a predetermined distance (see annotated fig.2-A below for the engagement piece in a non-contact state and the second end is positioned radially inward relative to the first end by a predetermined distance as the bottom face of the engagement end, second end as pointed, slops inwards and down ). Lee does not teach wherein outer container includes a projection formed on an outer surface and the second part of the engagement piece contacts a lower surface of the projection, thereby preventing engagement between the outer container and the inner container from being released, upon attachment of the inner container to the outer container.
Del Din does teach wherein outer container includes a projection formed on an outer surface and the second part of the engagement piece contacts a lower surface of the projection, thereby preventing engagement between the outer container and the inner container from being released, upon attachment of the inner container to the outer container (fig.8 shows the outer container 20 with a projection 23 formed on the outer surface of the container in the groove 24C and the second part of the engagement piece 8A in fig.7 contacts the lower surface of the projection 23 to prevent the container from being released). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer container disclosed by Lee by adding the teaching of projection on the outer surface of the container at the mouth as disclosed by Del Din in order to form a rotation-preventing barrier at each recess or groove (for example to retain a bayonet lug of the second locking means), which can be overcome by exerting force exceeding a threshold, due to the flexibility/plastic deformation of the longitudinal tabs during rotational movement.(0039, Del Din)
Annotated fig.2 of Lee
PNG
media_image1.png
989
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2-A of Lee
PNG
media_image2.png
649
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim further teaches wherein the opening has an elongated rectangular shape (fig.2 above shows the opening has an elongated rectangular shape) and has a lateral width of 1 cm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lateral width of Lee to be 1 cm in order to match the structure of the outer cap and have a friction fit. To modify the size of the package and retainer into the claimed cap would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein the outer container includes a groove that extends in the circumferential direction formed on the outer surface of the mouth and on a lower side of the projection (see annotated fig.2 above for the outer container including a groove that extends circumferentially and formed on the outer surface of the mouth and lower side of the projection as modified in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 3 further teaches wherein the engagement piece is connected to one end of the opening and extends in a cantilever shape (see annotated fig.2 above for engagement piece connected to one end of the opening, the top, and extends n a cantilever shape).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein the outer container includes a case portion including a bottom and a side wall, and the mouth is a cylindrical mouth positioned on an inner side of the side wall of the case portion (see annotated fig.2 above for the case portion with side wall and bottom wall and the mouth is a cylindrical mouth positioned on the inner side of the side wall i.e. the inside of the mouth).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 7 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 7 further teaches wherein the two-part container is threadedly engageable with a cap including a female screw (see annotated fig.2 above for the cap that is threadedly engagement with the cap including female screw).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 1 further teaches a cap engageable with the mouth of the outer container (fig.1 above shows the cap engageable with a mouth of the container).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Adams (US5513763A)
Regarding claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Lee as modified in claim 10 does not teach wherein a seal member is provided on an underside of a top surface of the cap.
Adams does teach wherein a seal member is provided on an underside of a top surface of the cap (fig.1 shows the cap 21 with a seal disk 39 underside of the top surface 22). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap disclosed by claim 1 by adding the teaching of the seal disk as disclosed by Adams in order to make the cap water-tight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Claim 12 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee does not teach “a second free end” however this is not persuasive as applicant has not given any details on what it does or anything. For examples, claims requires “engagement piece” (see labeled in fig.2 above) that has “ a first end connected to the hanging portion” (see fig.2-A above for the first end as labeled being connected to the hanging portion ) and “second end which is free” (see fig.2A above for the second free end that is the bottom slopped surface of the engagement piece) applicant has not claimed that the free end is how it is disclosed in applicant’s own drawings. Applicant also argues that since Del Din is “merely a circumferential rotation-preventing/locking member” it cannot teaching for the deficiencies in Lee this is not found persuasive as Del Din teaches the structure required by applicant regardless of what the purpose of the structure is, as stated above the teaching for the modification is present “form a rotation-preventing barrier at each recess or groove (for example to retain a bayonet lug of the second locking means), which can be overcome by exerting force exceeding a threshold, due to the flexibility/plastic deformation of the longitudinal tabs during rotational movement”. Applicant is suggested to define the free ends with more details and how the engagement of that translate. No other arguments were made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights