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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: annular retainer, internal reservoir, top-open space, inward flange, outer limits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the rotational shaft is part of the container part or not. From claim 1 there is “a rotational shaft of the container part”. However, claim 7 recites “a support connecting the rotational shaft and the container part to each other is formed on an outside of the container part”. If the rotational shaft is part of the container part, as required by claim 1, how can it be connected to the container part, as required by claim 7? Additionally, the limitation of the support connecting the rotational shaft and the container part to each other appears to indicate that the rotational shaft is not part of the container part. Further, how can the rotational shaft both be part of the container part and be located on the outside of the container part? In order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if the rotational shaft is not part of the container part.
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.
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(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091) further in view of Yeo (KR 200487836).
Claim 1: Lee discloses a container 100 comprising: a main body 130 (container part) having a filling space 132 (internal reservoir) formed therein and configured to receive some impregnation member therein; a stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) to prevent the impregnation member from escaping from the main body 130 (container part); and a cover 110 (cover part) comprises a cover hinge 126 having a flat blocking portion, wherein the cover hinge 126 is rotatably coupled to a main body hinge 149 (support part) of the main body 130 (container part) via a pin passing through both the cover hinge 126 and connected to the main body 130 (container part) by the main body hinge 149 (support part) in such a way as to open and close the main body 130 (container part), the main body 130 (container part) in such a way as to open and close the main body 130 (container part), wherein the main body 130 (container part) comprises: an inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) and a body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) spaced apart from the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) in an outward direction, with a top-open space defined therebetween, wherein the stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) is coupled to a periphery of the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall), and the cover 110 (cover part) is coupled to the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) in such a way as to seal the filling space 132 (internal reservoir), wherein the cover 110 (cover portion) comprises a lower circumferential surface 120 having a plurality of sealing protrusions 122 protruding outwardly and discharge grooves 124 positioned between the sealing protrusions 122, wherein the sealing protrusions 122 are inserted into a sealing groove 144 on an inner periphery of the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) to couple the cover 110 (cover portion) to the main body 130 (container part) and a fully annular pressing protrusion 148 formed along an inner peripheral surface of the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) and which presses the entire lower circumferential surface 120, and wherein the stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) has a locking protrusion 158 formed along an inner peripheral surface of the stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) (see fig. 1-3, 9-10, annotated fig. 2, and annotated partial fig. 6 below).
Lee does not disclose the cover part being rotatably coupled to a rotation shaft of the container part in such a way as to open and close the container part, wherein at least one first air groove is formed along an inner peripheral surface of the outer peripheral wall, or wherein at least one second air groove is formed along an inner peripheral surface of the annular retainer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the sealing protrusions 122 be fully annular and to have provided the pressing protrusion 148 with discharge grooves 124 (first air grooves) as it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the locking groove 158 to be a series of locking grooves 158 with discharge grooves 124 (second air grooves) positioned therebetween, as taught by Lee, in order to more easily separate the stopper ring 150 (fixing part).
Yeo teaches a compact container having a container body 10 comprising: a rotational shaft located on the outside thereof to rotate a container lid 20; and a support for connecting the rotational shaft and the container body 10 to each other, and the container lid 20 comprises: a flat blocking portion; and a hook extending from the underside of the blocking portion in such a way as to be open on an outside area thereof and rotatably coupled to the rotational shaft (see annotated partial fig. 2 below and fig. 1 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have replaced the pin with a rotational shaft monolithically formed with the main body hinge 149 (support part) and to have modified the cover hinge 126 to be open at its bottom, forming a hook, and attached to the rotational shaft, in light of Yeo, in order to reduce components and manufacturing steps by allowing the cover 110 (cover part) to attach directly to the main body 130 (container part).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
300
209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
658
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) is higher than the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) so that an interference between the stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) coupled to the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) and the cover 110 (cover part) coupled to the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) is prevented from occurring (see fig. 2).
Claim 7: The combination discloses a support connecting the rotational shaft and the main body 130 (container part) to each other is formed on an outside of the main body 130 (container part), and the cover 110 (cover part) comprises a flat blocking portion and a hook extending from an underside of the blocking portion in such a way as to be open on an outside area thereof and rotatably coupled to the rotational shaft (see annotated fig. 2 & 4 above).
Claim 8: The combination discloses wherein the stopper ring 150 (annular retainer) comprises a coupling portion 156 (peripheral portion) formed on outer limits of inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) of the main body 130 (container part); and an inward flange protruding inward from top of the coupling portion 156 (peripheral portion) in such a way as to prevent some impregnation member from escaping the cover 110 (cover part) (see annotated fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091) and Yeo (KR 200487836) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (JP 2005304572).
Claim 2: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein the container part is made of a relatively softer material than the cover part, and the cover part is made of a relatively harder material than the container part.
Sekine teaches a cosmetic container 1 having a lid body 6 made of polypropylene and a container body 3 made of high-density polyethylene which is a relatively softer material than polypropylene (see 10th paragraph of the best mode section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the main body 130 (container part) out of high-density polyethylene and the cover 110 (cover portion) out of polypropylene, as taught by Sekine, in order to permit sealing without any particular feeling of resistance and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the cover 110 (cover portion) is made of polypropylene (polypropylene resin) and the main body 130 (container part) out of high-density polyethylene (polyethylene resin).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 2-4 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 11 May 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 5-8 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 11 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 14-18 and 20-21 of office action dated 9 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 11 May 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first air groove allowing air inside the container part to be effectively discharged upon closing of the cover part thereby relieving internal pressure and enabling stable sealing and the second air groove allowing air to be discharged when the annular retainer is coupled to the container part thereby relieving internal pressure and preventing deformation of the sealing sheet) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that relocating Lee’s discharge grooves from the lower circumferential surface of the cover to the pressing protrusion of the main body would constitute an excessive structural modification and it appears difficult to conclude that a person skilled in the art would have readily adopted such a change, the Examiner replies that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Further, redesign and reconstruction does not detract from obviousness. It is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See also id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In response to applicant’s argument that Lee appears to contain no technical teaching or motivation to introduce any configuration corresponding to the second air groove and on this basis it seems difficult to conclude that a person skilled in the art would have readily arrived at this configuration from Lee, the Examiner replies that “[T]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law”. MPEP 2144 I.
In response to applicant’s argument that the core configuration of the invention of the the specific coupling relationship among the container part comprising inner and outer peripheral walls, the annular retainer, and the cover part appear to be neither disclosed nor suggested by any of the cited references individually or in combination, the Examiner replies that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Applicant must discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights