FINAL ACTION
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received 12/30/2025. The Examiner has determined that applicant’s amendments do not overcome the refusal of record under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b). Further, applicant has introduced new matter that is present in the replacement reproductions filed 12/30/2025. This action is now made final.
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 .
Claim Final Refusal – 35 USC § 112(a)
The claim is FINALLY REFUSED under 35 USC § 112(a), as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the replacement drawings filed on 12/30/2025 introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that 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).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure showing:
Replacement 1.1 with additional surfaces on the bottom interior wall, arrowed to and highlighted in gray below;
PNG
media_image1.png
978
1379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement 1.6 absent the elements on the innermost circular feature, arrowed to below; And
PNG
media_image2.png
1006
1793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner understands Embodiment 1 (1.1-1.7) shows the closure attached to a transparent bottle. However, replacement 1.7 does not show the features on the bottom of the closure disclosed in original 1.7. See comparison below.
PNG
media_image3.png
398
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this refusal, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that they were in possession of the amended claim or by amending 1.7 to disclose the features/surfaces on the bottom of the closure. Applicant should note the surfaces must be converted to broken line as outlined in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2025 (specifically pages 4 and 5 of the Office action).
Claim Final Refusal - 35 USC § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is AGAIN AND FINALLY REFUSED under 35 USC § 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.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because:
In 2.1, the examiner is unable to determine the exact configuration of the different areas, highlighted in gray below, on the top of the dispenser. As currently disclosed, the surfaces on the top of the dispenser are not clearly shown as being on the same plane as each other or what might be recessed or raised above other elements. While said surfaces may be shown in other views (specifically 2.6), the showing is obstructed or taken at an angle that does not reconcile the exact depth and form. Therefore, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image4.png
917
862
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for the surfaces indicated above on the top of the dispenser by amending the reproductions to color wash or convert said surfaces to broken lines, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403.
Corrected drawing sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet of the reproductions should include all of the views appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one view is being amended. The view of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended". If a drawing view is to be canceled, the appropriate view must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining views 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 renumbered of the remaining views. Each drawing sheet of reproductions 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). Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) (see 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02). 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.
Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed as new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case:
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”, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 darcey.gottschalk@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 an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. 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
Conclusion
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.
To inquire about this communication, applicants may contact Examiner Darcey Gottschalk by phone at (571) 270-0225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern. 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 applicant may contact the examiner' s supervisor, George Ulsh, by phone at (571) 270-1433. The fax number for this group 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.
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).
/DARCEY E GOTTSCHALK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2922