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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election
Group II, Embodiment 2, Reproductions 2.1-2.10 and Group III, Embodiment 3, Reproductions 3.1-3.10, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election of Group I, Embodiment 1, Reproductions 1.1-1.10, was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 1st, 2025.
Drawing Objection
The reproductions are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design because
the reproductions are not of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished. There are areas in the reproductions where the lines are thick and dense, creating black masses which cause the appearance of the described design to be uncertain, even when viewed at maximum zoom capacity. See reproductions below for examples:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, there are areas where curved lines are angular and jagged and where lines seem to overlap where they should not overlap. (37 CFR 1.1026 Reproductions shall comply with the requirements of Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions.) See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
514
1496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above objection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New reproductions are suggested so the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views, with clean, crisp lines of a weight that clearly depicts all features of the claim.
Corrected reproduction 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 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 reproduction 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 reproduction 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 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.
Claim Rejection ‐ 35 USC § 112
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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
Reproduction 1.10 causes the scope of the design and the exact appearance of the design to be uncertain for several reasons. The reasons are as follows:
Portions of the lid in reproduction 1.10 are inconsistently depicted in broken lines while the lid is depicted in solid lines in all other views provided. The change from solid line to broken line in Reproduction 1.10 also causes confusion to where the claim stops and ends as all inner surfaces of the lid are claimed in solid lines in the other views provided. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
596
1400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
There are no cross-sectional indications to show where the sectional view is taken. This causes uncertainty to the scope of the claim because the cross-sectional view does not depict the side walls of the lid. This is inconsistent with the other views provided that depict the sidewalls spanning the circumference of the lid. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image4.png
760
1398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
301
1400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Along with addressing the inconsistency described above, the examiner suggests adding indicators on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line, provided it does not introduce new matter. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight
Reproduction 1.10 appears to depict the lid gradually sloping downward into the center. This is inconsistent with the other reproductions which appear to depict a ring around the circumference of the top surface of the lid. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
706
2324
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
The examiner does not understand the hatch lines on the handle portion of the claim as they are different than the hatch lines utilized in the lid portion. This is inconsistent and creates confusion as there is no explanation of the difference in material that warrants the change in hatching. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross sectional views.
See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image7.png
234
1198
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Since opacity is a characteristic of both parts of the article, and as there appears to be no appreciable difference in material that would warrant a change in hatching, it is recommended that the hatching be made constant with oblique lines.
The reproductions do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The following portions are unclear:
The elements located in the center portion of the lid, depicted only in reproduction 1.10, are considered not fully disclosed. The view provided is inadequate to cover the scope asserted and is not sufficient for a complete disclosure. The view does not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of this portion of the claimed design. The article is subject to multiple interpretations because of the uncertainty of the overall appearance of this area. The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are considered to be indefinite and non-enabled. See figure below for reference:
PNG
media_image8.png
490
897
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To overcome this portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by converting them to broken lines. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
If applicant elects to amend the reproductions to contain broken lines, the descriptive statement describing the broken lines in the specification should be amended to avoid confusion to the scope of the claim. The design claim is limited to what is shown in the drawings therefore referring to the claim as “designs” alludes to additional designs in the claim which is not permitted. (MPEP 1503.01, II)
-- The characteristic features of the design lie in the shape; the parts shown by means of broken lines in the reproductions form no part of the claimed design. --
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 U.S.C 112 (a) and (b).
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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).
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 Yen.Southwood@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.
Responses 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/apply
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
For additional info: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEN L SOUTHWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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 Primary Examiner Catherine Posthauer can be reached at (571) 270-0233, or, the examiner's supervisor Lilyana Bekic can be reached on (571) 272-7425. 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.
/Y.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2918
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2919