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Group II, Embodiment 2, Reproductions 2.1-2.8 and Group III, Embodiment 3, Reproductions 3.1-3.8, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.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 1.1-1.8 was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 5th, 2026.
Drawing Objection
The amended reproductions received January 5th, 2026 are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design for the following reasons:
The reproductions are objected to because they are not of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished. There is a lack of clean, sharp lines throughout the different views of the claimed design. The majority of the reproductions are depicted with jagged lines that can cause confusion to the appearance of the claimed design. (37 CFR 1.1026 Reproductions shall comply with the requirements of Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions.)The lines used to depict the claim are jagged and do not show a smooth curve on rounded features. Additionally, portions of claim are depicted with lines that abruptly end. See reproductions below for some examples of poor line quality.
PNG
media_image1.png
1133
2229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1102
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As the questionable instances are numerous, not every confusing line, or example of poor line quality is indicated above. The reproductions are intended to show examples of the problems; the onus is on the applicant to set forth a clear and constant disclosure depicted with clean sharp lines.
The reproductions appear to contain minor inconsistencies in the illustration of the design. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. The inconsistencies are as follows:
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent to the other views provided. Reproduction 1.3 appear to depict additional vertical lines on the elements located in the inner portion of the domed lid. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
1130
2242
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, reproduction 1.3 appears to depict lines on the protruding circular elements along the outer rim of the lid. The lines are inconsistent with the other views provided and because some of the lines block the center circular element on the knubs. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image4.png
1130
2242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above objections, 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.
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 number 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 renumbering 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 to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing new reproductions.
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:
The inconsistencies between the reproductions cause the appearance of the described design to be uncertain. ALL reproductions must be consistent. Inconsistencies are listed as follows:
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with the other views provided. Reproduction 1.2 appears to depict the loop handle as a continuous element with the base. Reproduction 1.2 appears to depict the handle with a smooth surface. The other views provided appear to depict a connecting element between the loop handle and the base. The other views provided also appear to depict contour lines along the loop handle. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image5.png
870
1743
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2 is inconsistent with Reproductions 1.3 and 1.8. Reproduction 1.2 appears to depict horizontal elements at the base of the interior domed portion of the lid of the claim. Reproductions 1.3 and 1.8 appear to depict the interior domed portion of the lid of the claim with a smooth surface. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
2349
2316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3 is inconsistent to Reproductions 1.2 and 1.4. Reproduction 1.3 appears to depict the interior domed portion of the lid with a base element with an inclined slope and a curved edge. Reproduction 1.2 appears to depict a portion of an element that is situated much further down. Reproduction 1.4 appears to depict the interior domed portion of the lid with a smooth surface with no edge. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image7.png
2346
2349
media_image7.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New drawings are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views.
The examiner does not fully understand Reproduction 1.3, specifically the gasket ring and the container portion of the claim. The examiner does not understand why the opening of the gasket appears to be opaque, blocking out portions of the container that should be seen through the gasket opening. The examiner does not understand why the ring on the circumference of the container and the straw element do not continue through the rest of the top of the container. See reproduction below for reference:
PNG
media_image8.png
2249
858
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New drawings are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views.
The drawings do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The following portions are unclear:
The below shaded areas in reproduction 1.3 are considered not fully disclosed. The elements are only visible in one view which 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 full appearance and entire three-dimensional configuration of these elements. 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_image9.png
2249
922
media_image9.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, a statement similar to the following should be included in the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132):
-- The broken lines show portions of the Beverage Bottle that 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 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 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.
/YEN LE SOUTHWOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights