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 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 in FIGS. 2.1-2.8. The back edge of the lid is flat on top with no features in FIGS. 2.1-2.3 and 2.5-2.8 (pointed to by solid arrows); however, there is a rectangular feature seen in that same area in FIG. 2.4 (shaded and pointed to by dashed arrows). See illustration below for comparison. The drawings must be amended by showing all features consistently in all figures. Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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 title of the design being claimed must be descriptive, accurate, clear, and correspond to the name of the article in which the design is embodied or applied. 35 USC 171, MPEP 1503.01.1. The title is objected to because it is directed to the functionality of the invention. The phrase “ disposable ” describes the functionality of the article. Issued design patents are concerned solely with the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its functionality. Function and structure fall under the realm of utility patent applications. Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the title throughout the application, original oath or declaration exce pted to read: --Bioreactor-- 2) The specification of a nonprovisional international design application is not permitted to include statements describing matters that are directed to function or are unrelated to the design. See MPEP 2920.04(a)(II.) The second to last sentence in the specification reading [The purpose of the product with the design is for culturing cells;] must be removed because it is describing the function of the article. 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. The claim is indefinite and non-enabled due to the inconsistencies between the figures. 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 inconsistencies exist. The inconsistencies are as follows: There is an inconsistency between FIGS. 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 . There are no edge lines seen on the side surfaces in FIGS. 2.1 and 2.2 (pointed to by dashed arrows); however, the re are solid lines seen in those same area in FIGS. 2.5 and 2.6 (pointed to by solid arrow s ). See the illustrations below. To overcome the rejection, applicants may amend the drawings to show all features consistently in all figures. Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) as set forth above. The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Tormanen, whose telephone number is (703) 756-1857. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM ET. 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 examiner Michael Stout can be reached at (408) 918-7558 , or the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Fox can be reached at (571) 272-4456 . 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. /EET/ Examiner, Art Unit 2936 /MICHAEL C STOUT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2943