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
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to. The “unfolded” description that the applicant has provided is not sufficient to explain the view submitted in reproduction 1.7. The descriptions of the reproductions are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they must describe the views clearly and accurately. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II. To avoid confusion to the claim, the following figure description is suggested for reproduction 1.7:
-- Shown in a state of use --
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:
Reproductions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 are inconsistent with reproductions 1.5-1.7. Reproductions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 appear to depict a horizontal rectangular element connecting the handle portion of the claim with the lid portion. Reproductions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 appear to also depict a vertical line that curves over the top of the lid, situated in front of the button on top of the handle. Reproductions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 appear to depict the handle portion and the lid portion of the claim divided by a vertical line that continues over the handle to connect with the button on top. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
806
2829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1166
1785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The handle element is inconsistent in the views provided. Reproductions 1.1 and 1.2 appear to depict the handle as curved on the side edges and the bottom tip. Reproduction 1.4 appears to depict the top portion of the handle as curved and the vertical shaft portion of the handle with horizontal shade lines that indicate a flat surface. Reproduction 1.5 simultaneously depicts the handle as curved on the vertical shaft portion of the handle and with vertical shading that indicates a flat surface on the top of the handle. Reproductions 1.6 and 1.7 appear to depict curved shade lines on the top and vertical shaft portion of the handle. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
880
1082
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
920
1628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The button element in reproductions 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 is inconsistent with the button element in reproductions 1.1-1.4. Reproductions 1.5-1.7 appear to depict an additional rim surrounding the sides and bottom of the button element. Reproduction 1.1-1.4 appear to depict the button element with a vertical side wall and a curved upper edge that continues to the top surface of the button. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image5.png
793
1050
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The nozzle feature in Reproductions 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 is inconsistent. Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 appear to depict the border area surrounding the nozzle as a raised element, with depth. Reproduction 1.7 shows the order element connecting directly with the base edge, with no border element showing depth. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
966
2453
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, reproduction 1.7 appears to depict the nozzle feature with a sloped edge around the top surface. Reproductions 1. 5 appears to depict the nozzle feature with a straight edge. Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict the nozzle feature with both a slanted edge and a straight edge. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image7.png
702
2451
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 reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
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 hole at the tip of the nozzle and the recessed area in which the nozzle fits into, depicted only in reproduction 1.7, are considered not fully disclosed. As no other views are provided of these two features, the examiner does not know their exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration. The view provided of the hole at the tip of the nozzle does not disclose the entirety of its depth. The view provided of the recessed area in which the nozzle fits into does not disclose the entire appearance of all the elements in that area or their depth. The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are considered to be indefinite and non-enabled. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image8.png
803
1049
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above 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 drawings are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views.
Additionally, applicant is reminded that unclaimed subject matter must not show shading.
Replacement Reproductions
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.
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
Prosecution Insights