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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/11/2026 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 1 and 6-10 are pending.
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) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN 213933896 U in view of Safarik US 2011/0262589 A1, herein after referred to as Zhang and Safarik respectively.
Regarding claim 1 Zhang discloses a liquid container (20 cup body) comprising:
an accommodating portion (21 receiving cavity) that accommodates a liquid (30 diluent) and has an opening portion (Figs. 3-5) at an upper end thereof;
a sealing film (40 protective film) that seals the opening portion (page 6, lines 17-18) and that is capable of being perforated by being pierced by a perforating tool (pages 8-9 lines 21-line 2); and
two pressure indentations (41A, 41B and 41C, pre-indentation) that are linear and are formed on a surface of the sealing film (Fig. 8),
wherein the two pressure indentation intersect at a central point of the opening (Fig. 8, each of the pressure indentations that from a plus sign intersect at the central point of the long side of the opening),
wherein the opening portion has, in a plan view, two directions, the first direction in which a distance between inner edges is relatively long and a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and in which the distance is relatively short (Figs. 3 and 5-8),
wherein one of the two pressure indentations extends along the first direction, and another of the two pressure indentations extends along the second direction (Fig. 8).
Zhang is silent to a length of each of the two pressure indentations is equal to or greater than 50% of a length from one end portion to another end portion of the opening portion in respective extending directions and the length of one of the two pressure indentations is longer than the distance along the second direction of the opening portion.
Safarik teaches a sealing film (54 cover sheet) for cover openings that have a long side and a short side with two pressure indentations (70, 72, 74 and 76 laser scoring patterns, Figs. 5 and 6). The pressure indentations are equal or greater than 50% of a length from one end portion to another end portion of the opening in respective extending directions and the length of one of the two pressure indentations is longer than the length of the short side (72, 76 Fig. 5 and the “T” shape in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure indentations of Zhang to include the longer intersecting pressure indentions as taught by Safarik as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results as shown by Safarik. Also, Safarik shows that elongated pressure indentations are an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two pressure indentations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the shorter pressure indentation for an elongated pressure indentation as taught by Safarik.
Regarding claim 6 Zhang as modified discloses a liquid container according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the pressure indentations are orthogonal to each other (Figs. 5-6 Safarik).
Regarding claim 7 Zhang as modified discloses a liquid container according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein a planar shape of the opening portion is an elongated circular shape (Fig. 5, the opening is elongated with rounded edge portions). Additionally, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8 Zhang as modified discloses a liquid container according to claim 1 and further discloses a plurality of the accommodating portions (21) are provided, and the opening portions of the accommodating portions are arranged side by side (Figs. 1-3 and 5-8).
Regarding claim 9 Zhang as modified discloses a liquid container according to claim 8 and further discloses wherein the pressure indentation is provided in each of the opening portions (Figs. 6-8 and Figs. 5-6 Safarik).
Regarding claim 10 Zhang as modified discloses a liquid container according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the sealing film (40) is made of aluminum (page 6, line 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “neither Zhang, nor Safarik, discloses the specific cross configuration aligned with the long and short directions of the elongated opening”, examiner disagrees. A cross configuration aligned with the long and short directions is not claimed. The claim recites “wherein one of the two pressure indentation extends along the first direction, and another of the two pressure indentations extends along the second direction”, it does not recite that the indentation extend only in the first direction or only in the second direction, or parallel to the first or second direction, merely along the first or second direction. As shown by 72 in figure 5 of Safarik each of the two pressure indentations extend along both the first and second directions as it is along a diagonal of the opening, thusly meeting the claimed limitation. Each side of the “X” formed by 72 is longer than 50 of the length from one end to the other and intersect at a central point meeting the limitations as claimed. Further, the “T” shaped indentations in figure 6 of Safarik also discloses two pressure indentations that are more than half the length of the direction they are in and one being longer than the short side. The “T” also intersects at a central point of the opening as they intersect along the center line of the opening as the claim does not recite the central point, but merely a central point. Nor is a definition of a central point claimed, i.e., a central point of the opening is the middle point of both the short and long sides. Thusly the combination of Zhang and Safarik meet the limitations of the liquid container as it is currently claimed.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights