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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Acknowledgement is here made of applicant’s amendments of January 20th, 2026, wherein amendments have been made to the drawings and specification. The merits of the application have been fully reconsidered in view of applicant’s amendments. However, the previous rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) has not been overcome and therefore the claim is again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) and made Final.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) – Final
The rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), as lacking in enablement for the reasons set forth in the previous action have not entirely been overcome. Therefore, the claim is again and FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). Since the applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and since the applicant has not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) this action is made final (see MPEP 706.07 (a)).
That is, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Inconsistencies
The amended drawings have revealed additional inconsistencies as follows.
Reproductions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are inconsistent:
Length of the ribbon appears to extend to the edges of the can in 1.4 but appears much shorter in 1.2
The configuration of the knots is different in both views, resulting in 1.2 showing space between the ribbon section, further revealing the can tab in between, whereas Figure 1.4 shows the knot as tighter, with no evidence of the can tab showing through. Additionally, the ribbons overlap in Figure 1.2 but are divided down the middle in Figure 1.4.
Furthermore, Figure 1.1 is inconsistent with Figure 1.3 as the ribbons are shown overlapping in Figure 1.1 but divided evenly in Figure 1.3.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
661
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 are inconsistent:
Length of the ribbon appears to extend to the edges of the can in 3.4 but appears much shorter in 3.2
The configuration of the knots is different in both views, resulting in 3.2 showing space between the ribbon section, further revealing the can tab in between, whereas Figure 3.4 shows the knot as tighter, with no evidence of the can tab showing through. Additionally, the ribbons overlap in Figure 3.2 but are divided down the middle in Figure 3.4.
Furthermore, Figure 3.1 is inconsistent with Figure 3.3 as the ribbons are shown overlapping in Figure 3.1 but divided evenly in Figure 3.3.
PNG
media_image3.png
678
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1022
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The configuration of the knots is different in both views, resulting in 16.2 showing space between the ribbon section, further revealing the can tab in between, whereas Figure 16.4 shows the knot as tighter, with no evidence of the can tab showing through. Additionally, the ribbons overlap in Figure 16.2 but are divided down the middle in Figure 16.4.
Furthermore, Figure 16.1 is inconsistent with Figure 16.3 as the ribbons are shown overlapping in Figure 16.1 but divided evenly in Figure 16.3.
PNG
media_image5.png
472
938
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
677
1459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The configuration of the knots is different in both views, resulting in 18.2 showing space between the ribbon section, further revealing the can tab in between, whereas Figure 18.4 shows the knot as tighter, with no evidence of the can tab showing through. Additionally, the ribbons overlap in Figure 18.2 but are divided down the middle in Figure 18.4.
Furthermore, Figure 18.1 is inconsistent with Figure 18.3 as the ribbons are shown overlapping in Figure 18.1 but divided evenly in Figure 18.3.
PNG
media_image7.png
472
1059
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
533
1091
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It is therefore recommended that applicant show all such features clearly and consistently throughout the disclosure.
Unclear Parts
The low contrast and overall blurred quality of the reproductions creates difficulty in clearly understanding what parts of the article applicant seeks protection for, and further the exact shape and appearance of all parts intended to be claimed.
The descriptions indicate that Applicant intends to claim both the pull tab as well as the ribbon. Applicant has further described the “faded parts” as intended to form no part of the claim. As both the pull tabs and the ribbons remain as faded as the exemplary can upon which they are applied in some views, Examiner is unable to clearly delineate which parts applicant seeks protection for. Reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. See MPEP 2909.02 (Hague Rule 9, subsection 2 (a)).
Corrected reproductions of a higher resolution quality, with all claimed portions clearly delineated from portions intended to form no part of the claim. See arrows in annotated reproductions below for examples of parts in question.
The tab portion is shown with inconsistent resolution, where fine details are visible in some views but not others. See arrows in annotated reproductions below for examples of parts in question.
PNG
media_image9.png
513
1213
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The reproductions are of a quality that is so blurred and washed out that the fine details of the tab and ribbon portion remain unclear. See arrows in annotated reproductions below for examples of quality in question.
PNG
media_image10.png
532
774
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
580
766
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
376
770
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
400
562
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
326
398
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
334
354
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Note: While every attempt has been made to address all possible issues with the disclosure, additional instances may exist. Applicant is reminded on the necessity to set forth a clear and consistent disclosure.
Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the drawings provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. All inconsistencies should be remedied or otherwise satisfactorily explained, amended to form no part of the claim, or figures cancelled [if such does not negatively impact understanding of the remaining disclosure]. Inconsistency that cannot be either corrected or satisfactorily explained should be amended to form no part of the claim with lightweight broken lines. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter.
If applicant chooses to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Replacement Reproductions
Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.”
If a 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 reproductions for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or the remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design.
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending
application will be considered an interview and are to be mace of record. See MPEP 713. The
examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the
representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s
representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations
under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant
before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a
patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information
regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic Interviews
A telephonic may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the
USPTO (‘registered practitioner’) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor
and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a
power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form
PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO’, available at
https :/ywww.uspto.gov/ ‘patent,'forms/forms-patent-applications-fiied-or-after-september-
16-2012 may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews
may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an
“Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page
indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see
“When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to
communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at
catherine.posthauer@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please
include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the
interview, please consider the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this
communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone
call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium}
unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form
PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to
Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such
authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may
not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the
USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II
for further information.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of
refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR
1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b}(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must
be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571 -273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https :/www.uspto.gov/paterits-niaintaining-pateni/responcirig-office-actlons
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL (see MPEP 706.07 (a)). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. 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 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting <http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html> and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Catherine Posthauer whose telephone Number is (571) 270-0233. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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, George Ulsh, can be reached on 571-270-1433. The
fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/. Status information for published applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished
applications are available through Patent Center only. For more information about the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922