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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 3-6, and 8 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “…which is a starting point of an undercut part where the inner bag interferes with the outer shell when pulling the inner bag from the container body.” This is indefinite or unclear.
The term “interferes with” is generally defined as to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes, or to come into collision or be in opposition.1 However, it appears the claim intends to identify that the constricted part forms an area in which the inner bag is removably held in place in such a manner that a pulling force removing the bag from the outer shell is obstructed. However, it may also be that an “interference fit” is intended between the bag and the outer shell.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim intends to identify that the constricted part and undercut part is dimensioned and configured to provide a resistive force against the removal of the inner bag by a pulling motion applied to the bag.
All dependent claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco (US 3851781).
Regarding Claim 8, Marco discloses a double container comprising a container body having an inner bag (10) and an outer shell (26) arranged to cover the inner bag, wherein the inner bag is configured to be pullable from the container body. Marco further discloses the outer shell is dimensioned and configured to provide a resistive force against the removal of the inner bag by a pulling motion applied to the bag when pulling the inner bag from the container body at an undercut region (32). While Marco does not disclose the wall thicknesses of the inner bag and the outer shell, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions and thicknesses of the inner bag and outer shell may be modified and adjusted to provide different degrees of engagement between the bag and outer shell or to accommodate differences in dimensions of the components.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco (US 3851781) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2020/0231321) or alternatively, Yamaguchi in view of Marco.
Regarding Claim 1, Marco discloses a double container comprising a container body having an inner bag (10) and an outer shell (26) arranged to cover the inner bag, wherein the inner bag is configured to be pullable from the container body, and a constricted part (32) is provided on an inner surface of the outer shell at a first height position, which is a starting point of an undercut part where the outer shell is dimensioned and configured to provide a resistive force against the removal of the inner bag by a pulling motion applied to the bag.
Marco discloses the constricted part is on an inner surface and not on an outer surface as claimed. Yamaguchi discloses a similar container comprising an inner bag (3) and an outer shell container (2) wherein the inner opening section includes a lower end contact section (at 29 below flange 11 as shown below) where the outer surface of the outer shell is constricted as shown in Applicant Element 3d.
PNG
media_image1.png
820
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal surface having a constricted part as disclosed in Marco with the external surface having a constricted part as disclosed in Yamaguchi in order to provide an alternative shape of the outer shell near the outlet to stably fix the inner bag (Paragraph 0055).
Alternatively, Yamaguchi discloses a container body having an inner bag and an outer shell arranged to cover the inner bag and a constricted part is provided on an outer surface of the outer shell at a first height position. Yamaguchi does not disclose the inner bag is configured to be pullable from the container body or that an undercut part of the outer shell is configured to obstruct a pulling movement to remove the bag portion.
Marco discloses an undercut region and constricted area where the outer shell is dimensioned and configured to provide a resistive force against the removal of the inner bag by a pulling motion applied to the bag.
It would have been obvious to modify the container and bag structure of Yamaguchi with the constricted area and removable bag feature of Marco in order to allow a user to remove the flexible bag for disposal (Col. 2 Lines 58-64).
Regarding Claim 2, both Marco and Yamaguchi disclose a double container comprising a container body having an inner bag and an outer shell arranged to cover the inner bag. Marco discloses the inner bag is configured to be pullable from the container body. Yamaguchi discloses the container body comprises a mouth part, a body part, and a bottom part; the mouth part is a tubular portion having an opening end; the body part is arranged adjacent to the mouth part on a side further from the opening end than the mouth part and has an outer diameter larger than that of the mouth part; and the bottom part is configured to close a lower end of the body part, the body part comprises a shoulder part whose outer diameter increases with distance from the mouth part. Yamaguchi further discloses the mouth part is provided with a flange (11) and that a constricted part is provided between the flange and the shoulder part.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 12, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the dimensions of the shell and inner bag to ensure proper engagement and desired fitment of the components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interfere
