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 § 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, 12-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2025/018627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a spatula-mounted container (Fig 1-8) comprising: a container body (300) forming a holding space on an inner side thereof for holding a content (Machine Translation Pg 7, ¶ 4), the container body including a neck (310) on an upper portion thereof, the neck formed around an opening to the holding space (see Fig 2); a wiper plug (200) made from a flexible material (industry standard, therefore inherent feature) and coupled to the neck to close the opening (Fig 3), the wiper plug having a wiper hole (211, Fig 6) formed in an inner side thereof, the wiper hole formed in a size smaller than that of the opening (as shown in Fig 3), the wiper plug including a wiper member (221), the wiper member protruding towards an inner side of the wiper hole (MT Pg 6, ¶9; also Fig 8a); and a spatula (140) separably coupled to the wiper plug and including a stick part (141) and a grip part (143 & 120, see Fig 5), the stick part having an elongated shape (as shown in Fig 2), the grip part formed on an end portion of the stick part (as shown in Fig 8), the spatula configured such that the grip part is unable to pass through the wiper hole (as shown in Fig 3 and Fig 8: outer portion of grip 120 does not pass thru wiper hole 211) and the stick part is able to pass through the wiper hole (as shown in Fig 3 & 8) so as to be at least partially positioned within the holding space while the spatula is in a coupled state with respect to the wiper plug, wherein the wiper member is pressed against a non-coated surface of the stick part and not pressed against a coated surface of the stick part (as shown in Fig 8; MT Pg 7, ¶1), so that the content is wiped from the non-coated surface and is left remaining on the coated surface when the spatula is separated from the wiper plug (as shown in Fig 8; MT Pg 8, ¶2-4).
Kim further teaches in claim 12 an overcap (110) separably coupled to the container body, wherein the overcap contacts an upper portion (1211) of the grip part while the overcap is in a coupled state with respect to the container body (as shown in Fig 3);
In claim 13 an overcap (110) separably coupled to the container body (via 120), wherein the grip part is coupled to the overcap (as shown in Fig 3);
In claim 14 wherein the wiper member inclines inward towards a bottom (as shown in Fig 6-8); and
In claim 16 wherein a lower portion (123 & 125) of the grip part completely closes the wiper hole (as shown in Fig 3).
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) 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Kim is silent wherein the wiper member has a smaller thickness than that of a remaining portion of the wiper plug. Instead, Kim shows a uniform thickness for the wiper member (Fig 8a).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. Tec Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device to have any suitable dimensions, including those claimed. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any wiper member thickness (see Specification) and it appears that Kim’s device would work equally well if made within the claimed wiper member thickness.
Regarding claim 17, Kim further teaches wherein the container body is implemented in a form of a tube (as shown in Fig 1). Kim is silent wherein the tube is made from a flexible material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the tube out of flexible material so the tube can be squeezed. Applicant has not disclosed that whether any of the above choices achieves any unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Kim to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,857,058 to Kobayashi and KR 202600555717A are directed to the state of the art as relevant teachings of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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 C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights