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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) because reference characters exist which neither have an associated lead line or indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. MPEP 608.02 V. See 1000 in figure 1 for example.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. MPEP 608.02 V. See at least figure 2.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fixing part coupled to the periphery of the container part of claim 1, one or more first air grooves along the periphery of the outer peripheral wall of claim 5, a peripheral portion formed along the perimeter of the container part of claim 8 and a sealing sheet for sealing an open area of the fixing part of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the form and legal phraseology of “comprise”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “100” has been used to designate container part and container.
The disclosure is objected to because reference characters "100" and "1000" have all been used to designate container.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fixing part in claims 1, 4 and 9, accommodation portion in claims 1 and 4, bottom portion in claim 4, and a locking portion in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 1 of “a fixing part coupled to the periphery of the container part” is led to be indefinite. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines periphery as the external boundary or surface of a body. From the drawings and description of the invention the fixing part is not present on the external boundary or surface of the container part as a whole, but rather on the periphery of a subcomponent, the inner peripheral wall 120, of the container part. It is unclear if the fixing part is coupled to the external periphery of the container part of to a peripheral surface of the container part. In order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 5 that “the outer peripheral wall has at least one or more first air grooves along the periphery thereof” is led to be indefinite. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines periphery as the external boundary or surface of a body. From the drawings and description of the invention the one or more first air grooves are not on the external boundary or surface of the outer peripheral wall, but rather on an inner peripheral surface of the outer peripheral wall. In order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if the outer peripheral wall has at least one or more first air grooves along an inner peripheral surface thereof.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the rotational shaft and support are part of the container part or not. Line 1 recites “the container part comprises: a rotational shaft located on the outside thereof to rotate the cover part; and a support for connecting the rotational shaft and the container part to each other”. The semicolon appears to indicate that the support is not part of the container part. Additionally, the limitation that the support is for connecting the rotational shaft and the container part to each other appears to indicate that neither of the rotational shaft or support are 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 and support are not part of the container part.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the perimeter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 8 of “a peripheral portion formed along the perimeter of the container part” is led to be indefinite. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines perimeter as outer limits. From the drawings and description of the invention the peripheral portion is not on the outer limits of the outer peripheral wall, but rather on the outer limits of the inner peripheral wall. It is unclear if the peripheral portion is formed along the outer limits of the container part of to the outer limits of the inner peripheral wall of the container part. In order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as the latter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091).
Claim 1: Lee discloses a container 100 comprising: a main body 130 (container part) having a filling space 132 (accommodation portion) adapted to receive some impregnation member therein; a stopper ring 150 (fixing part) coupled to the periphery of the main body 130 (container part) to prevent the impregnation member from escaping from the main body 130 (container part); and a cover 110 (cover part) rotatably coupled to the main body 130 (container part) in such a way as to open and close the main body 130 (container part) (see fig. 1-2).
The accommodation portion for receiving an impregnation member therein is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an accommodation space, and equivalents thereof.
The fixing part for preventing the impregnation member from escaping from the container part is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a peripheral portion coupleable to a container part and a locking portion protruding inward from the top of the peripheral portion, and equivalents thereof.
The locking portion for preventing the impregnation member from escaping form the container part is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an inward protrusion from the top of a peripheral portion, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 4: Lee discloses wherein the main body 130 (container part) further comprises: an inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) surrounding the filling space 132 (accommodation portion); a body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) spaced apart from the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) in an outward direction; and a bottom portion for supporting inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) and the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall), and a space between the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) and the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) is open on top thereof in such a way as to allow the stopper ring 150 (fixing part) to be coupled to the inner circumferential surface 134 (inner peripheral wall) and allow the cover 110 (cover part) to be coupled to the body circumferential surface 140 (outer peripheral wall) (see annotated partial figure 6 below and fig. 2).
The bottom portion for supporting the inner peripheral wall and the outer peripheral wall is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a panel, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Lee 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 (fixing part) 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 8: Lee discloses wherein the stopper ring 150 (fixing part) comprises: a coupling portion 156 (peripheral portion) formed along the perimeter of the main body 130 (container part); and a locking portion 152 protruding inward from top of the coupling portion 156 (peripheral portion) in such a way as to prevent the impregnation member from escaping from the main body 130 (container part) (see fig. 2).
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.
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) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091).
Claim 5: Lee discloses 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 presses the entire lower circumferential surface 120 (see fig. 3 & 9-10).
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.
Claim 9: Lee discloses comprising a label paper 162 (sealing sheet) for sealing an open area of the stopper ring 150 (fixing part) and the stopper ring 150 (fixing part) having a locking protrusion 158 (see annotated partial fig. 2 below and fig. 8).
Lee does not disclose the peripheral portion of the fixing part having at least one or more second air grooves.
Lee teaches 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 (see fig. 3 & 9-10).
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).
PNG
media_image2.png
593
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (JP 2005304572).
Claim 2: Lee 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).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2020-0121091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeo (KR 200487836).
Claim 7: Lee discloses wherein the 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) (see annotated partial fig. 4 below and fig. 2 & 5-6).
Lee does not disclose wherein the container part comprises: a rotational shaft located on the outside thereof to rotate the cover part; and a support for connecting the rotational shaft and the container part to each other, and the cover part 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.
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_image3.png
300
209
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
658
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 202018104435, KR 20120136154, KR 20180042549, US 20150360829, US 20150217911, and US 20170313463 are considered pertinent to claim 7.
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