Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/521,628

Perfume bottle

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
BIRDWELL, AMANDA KAY
Art Unit
2922
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Guerlain
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
94 granted / 94 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
98
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
70.2%
+30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 94 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Applicant’s Response Acknowledgement is here made of the Applicant’s Remarks and Amendment of 10/29/2025. The merits of the application have been carefully reconsidered in view of the Remarks and Amendment of 10/29/2025. Applicant’s Response to Specification Objections Applicant has addressed all issues raised by the Examiner’s Objections to the Specification. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment of 10/29/2025 has overcome the objections. Applicant’s Response to Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) The Replacement Drawings provided by the Applicant have been carefully examined and are found to address all concerns raised in the previous action. Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks and Amendment of 10/29/2025 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in the previous action. However, Applicant's Replacement Sheets introduce additional scope and enablement issues. See Final Rejection below. Rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following: There are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: The scope of the claim is not clearly shown in the drawings. The amended Fig. 1.7 utilizes a yellow overlay to indicate portions of the perfume bottle which form no part of the claim. However, this is contradicted by the other figures, which show the entirety of the bottle to consist of claimed subject matter. This confusion is compounded by the bottle’s transparent qualities, meaning it is unclear whether the yellow overlay in Fig. 1.7, depicting unclaimed subject matter, is indicating the upper, lower, interior, or exterior surfaces of the bottle. See diagrams below. PNG media_image1.png 743 1504 media_image1.png Greyscale Because of the inconsistencies described above, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. 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. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence 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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions Replacement Drawings A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. If all the figures on a drawing 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 drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. When preparing new or replacement drawings, any 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 filing. This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design. Conclusion The claimed design is FINALLY rejected for the reasons set forth above. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA KAY BIRDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9125. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5. 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, Primary Examiner Barbara Fox can be reached at (571)272-4456, or, the examiner’s supervisor, Rich Edgar, can be reached at (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. /A.K.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2931 /GEORGE J ULSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1119604
Bottle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent D1119091
Perfume bottle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent D1116828
Bottle cap
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent D1108269
Eyedrop Bottle
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent D1103778
PACKAGING CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 94 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month