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 .
General Information
Applicant's response with amendments received on June 9, 2025 is acknowledged, however, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on March 11, 2025 has not been fully resolved. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on March 11, 2025 has been withdrawn in part. Furthermore, the amended drawings have added subject matter not found in the original disclosure, therefore a new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been issued and made final below. As applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action, 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).
REFUSAL
Final Rejection under 35 USC § 112 (a)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner appreciates the new submission of drawings with clean lines, however, there are details in both embodiments that could not be determined in the original disclosure. See an example in Reproduction 1.7.
PNG
media_image1.png
1171
2344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may submit new drawing views with surface shape details shown consistently with what was originally disclosed on 5/3/2024 without introducing new matter. Applicant is also advised to direct attention to the 112 (a) and (b) rejections of the previous Office Action dated 3/11/2025 without introducing new matter. The Examiner also suggests that the new submission of reproductions large enough so that all details are reproductible in a printed patent.
Final Rejection under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) because the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same nor does it particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
The exact shape, appearance, depth and location of the areas within ring [A] in reproduction 1.6 cannot fully be understood since they are not disclosed enough to give a full understanding of the exact appearances of the referenced portions.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an attempt to overcome this refusals, the applicants may convert ring [A] in reproduction 1.6 to distinct, evenly spaced broken lines. In addition, to avoid confusion to the scope of the claim, all contour/shade lines within rings [A] in reproduction 1.6 should be removed (see Surface Shading - MPEP 1503.02 II).
Lastly, for clarity and accuracy, the broken line statement should be amended to read:
--The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the LID FOR INFANT FEEDING DEVICE that form no part of the claimed design.--
Replacement Sheets
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are suggested 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. All replacement sheets should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement thereof, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by U.S.C 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Refusal Reply
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The references cited are considered relevant to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” link in the PatFT: Patents column.
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 made 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 or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview 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://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-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 courtney.clarkrasheed@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 take into account 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 Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
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/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY CLARK-RASHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-9150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, Rich Edgar can be reached on (571)272-4816. 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.
/C.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2931
/LILYANA BEKIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2918
Prosecution Insights