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
Drawing Objection
The reproductions are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design because they contain minor inconsistencies See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. Reproduction 1.4 appears to depict a curved line on the top of the lid that is not present in the other views provided. See reproduction below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
606
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above objection applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New reproductions are required so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views.
Corrected reproduction sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all of the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. The reproduction or reproduction number of an amended reproduction should not be labeled as amended. If a reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
Specification Objection
The specification must be amended to provide accurate descriptions for the reproductions. Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)(II).
Descriptions of the reproductions are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they should describe the views of the drawing in a language that is meaningful to the public, MPEP 1503.01 (II). The broken line statement in the specification is objected to as it describes “parts shown by means of broken lines” however there are no broken lines in the reproductions. For clarity and to avoid confusion to the claim, the examiner suggests amending the broken line statement as follows:
-- A drinking vessel used for holding or storing liquids; the bottom view is omitted
because it is not easily seen or invisible when using. --
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 1.5 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.6 for the following reasons:
Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict the claim with a single rim shown in solid line. Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict the top of the claim with two rims on the edge, a thin outer one and a thicker inner one, all shown in solid lines. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
627
1550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict a thin space between the edge of the nozzle element and the top surface of the lid. Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict a wide space between the edge of the nozzle element and the top surface of the lid. The examiner understands that some change in the width of the space is expected due to the change in top view to perspective view however the width of the space in reproduction 1.6 seems disproportionately wide to what is depicted in reproduction 1.5. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
629
1550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict a U-shaped border around the nozzle element of the claimed design. Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict a border element that continues up the protruding tab feature. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image4.png
1409
3362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict the space in between the nozzle feature and the protruding tab element as a single area. Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict the space between the nozzle feature and the protruding tab element with a dividing line and multiple areas. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image5.png
627
1550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The handle element of the claimed design is inconsistent in the views provided. The inconsistencies are as follows:
Reproduction 1.4 appears to depict the vertical sections on the handle feature of the claim with very thin width. Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 appear to depict the sections on the handle feature of the claim with thicker width. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
841
1157
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.1 and 1.2 are inconsistent with reproduction 1.6. Reproduction 1.1 and 1.2 appear to depict two linear elements dividing the side surfaces of the handle. Reproduction 1.6 appears to depict one linear element dividing the side surface of the handle. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image7.png
832
929
media_image7.png
Greyscale
To overcome 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.
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 reproductions 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.
Examiner’s Comment
While the circular feature on the back of the nozzle shown in solid lines in FIG. 1.5 has no other helpful views to explain its exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration, the examiner considers the total, overall appearance of the claimed design to be disclosed with a reasonable degree of precision. That is, the exact appearance of the feature has no net effect on understanding the appearance of the claimed design as a whole and any question as to its exact appearance does not form a reasonable basis for rejection of the claim. See Ex parte Asano, 201 USPQ 315 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1978).
Conclusion
This 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