The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction Election/Applicant’s Response
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant’s response received on 01/16/2026.
Election of Group 1 (Reproductions 1.1-1.7 and 2.1-2.7 from the original set of drawings), was made without traverse in the response filed on 01/16/2026.
Group 2 (Reproductions 3.1-3.7) have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected designs. See the annotated drawings.
DETAILED ACTION
General Information
It is understood that the Perfume Bottle’s body is transparent because some internal features are shown through the bottle. See the illustration below, where the examiner has shaded in the internal features shown through the exterior of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to for the following reason:
When inconsistencies are found among the views, the examiner should object to the drawings and request that the views be made consistent. See MPEP 1503.02.
There is an inconsistency between reproductions 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 2.2, 2.6, and 2.7. The curved arch feature shown in reproductions 1.2 and 2.2 is not shown in reproductions 1.7 and 2.7. As reproductions 1.1-1.2 and 2.1-2.2 show, the arch features are present in both the front and back of the bottle’s body. In addition, the bottom surface edge lines in reproductions 1.5 (shown shaded in gray below) and 2.6 are not shown in reproductions 1.7 and 2.7. (See where arrows point to in the annotated illustration examples below for comparison.)
PNG
media_image2.png
739
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To overcome this objection, applicant must amend the reproductions to be consistent throughout the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The examiner also recommends using a lossless file format when submitting drawings through Patent Center (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). Applicant is encouraged to submit the amended drawings all in vector format.
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.”
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).
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to for the following reasons:
1) The titles “Perfume Bottles” and “Part of Perfume Bottles” are not permitted (MPEP 1503.01.I) because it is directed to more than one article of manufacture. Moreover, a “part” is not specific enough of an article of manufacture. 35 USC 171 requires designs to be directed to “an article of manufacture," and 35 USC 112 requires that the claim particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Accordingly, all instances of the title throughout the application, original oath and declaration excepted, must be amended to read --Perfume Bottle--.
2) For proper form (37 CFR 1.153) in designating a single claim, the claim statement must be amended by adding an -- a -- before the title so that it reads:
--I claim:
The ornamental design for a Perfume Bottle as shown and described.--
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b)
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.
1). Some features shown in reproductions 1.5 and 2.6 (see the illustration below) are indefinite and non-enabled because there is no supporting disclosure in the instant application to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the depth and three-dimensional appearance of the features and surfaces shown therein without resorting to conjecture.
In the illustration following, the shaded areas are indefinite and non-enabled.
PNG
media_image3.png
821
1593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may remove the indefinite and non-enabled features from the claim by converting them to broken lines.
2). The claim is indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear. The shaded areas in reproductions 1.1-1.4 and 1.7 are shown bounded by broken lines and solid lines. This causes uncertainty whether the questioned areas are claimed or not claimed. Moreover, in the statement identifying the trademarked ornamentation elements, it only describes that the elements are part of the disclosure but does not explicitly specify whether or not they are actually being claimed or not, so this does not aid in the understanding of the claim.
In the illustration following, the shaded areas are indefinite and non-enabled because they are shown bounded by broken lines and solid lines.
PNG
media_image4.png
928
1376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To overcome this part of the rejection, applicant may choose one of the following options:
a) If the areas are intended to be removed from the claim, then applicant may amend reproductions 1.1-1.4 and 1.7 by making the shaded features entirely bounded by broken lines.
b) If the areas are intended to be claimed, then applicant may amend reproductions 1.1-1.4 and 1.7 by making the shaded features entirely bounded by solid lines.
It is additionally suggested that applicant explicitly states in the trademark statement in the specification whether or not the trademarked ornamentation elements (that are shown in broken lines) are claimed or not claimed.
3). The scope of the claim is indefinite due to a drawing error in the reproductions. A designer of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether to make the article as shown in one figure or the other when significant drawing errors exist.
There is a drawing error in reproduction 1.7. Related to the issue described above, there are some areas which broken lines and solid lines are shown merging together or overlapping one another. This causes uncertainty whether those areas are claimed or not claimed. See the illustration below showing the questioned areas.
PNG
media_image5.png
860
1018
media_image5.png
Greyscale
To overcome this part of the rejection, applicant must amend reproduction 1.7 by avoiding the broken lines and solid lines from merging/overlapping. Therefore, to distinguish the indicated line(s), the examiner suggests to only show one type of line (broken lines or solid line) in the indicated areas above.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b) as set forth above.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
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).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Truong, whose telephone number is (571) 272-9794. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wendy Arminio can be reached on Monday thru Friday at (571) 270-0221. 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.
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: David.truong@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.
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. Applicant may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2923
/WENDY L ARMINIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2923