The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
REFUSAL
Objection to the Specification
Applicant is advised that as a general rule, the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description of the design in the specification. Other than a brief description of the drawing, further description is normally not needed and may lead to confusion as to the scope of the claimed design and is required to be canceled, see MPEP 1503.01, subsection II.
Therefore, the descriptive statement beginning with “The product's most unique feature is the possibility to be transported in a standard bicycle bottle cage; with its light and compact design it also fits in every bag or backpack without straining the material with sharp edges” should be removed.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) because the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same nor does it particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
1. The exact shape, appearance and depth location of the portions within areas [A] in reproductions 1.2 and 1.3 cannot be understood. Even though they are shown somewhat in the views, they are not disclosed enough to give a full understanding of the exact appearances of the referenced portions. See examiner annotations on next page.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
465
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. It is understood that the 1.4 reproduction shows the claimed design in context of the intended purpose/function. However, the term “reference view” as a reproduction description in the specification has no clear meaning and results in conjecture as to the scope of the design.
PNG
media_image3.png
785
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In an attempt to overcome these rejections, applicant may do the following:
a. Convert the portions within areas [A] in reproductions 1.2 and 1.3 to distinct broken lines and remove all surface shading shown within the broken lines OR fill the portions with a semi-transparent color.
b. If applicant’s intent is to show the claimed design in context, the examiner suggests converting the outline of the bottle cage and bicycle tube portions to distinct broken lines and remove all surface shading shown within the broken lines OR overlay the bottle cage and bicycle tube portions with a semi-transparent color.
Applicant is advised, If broken lines or color is included in the drawing, their use must be defined in the specification; i.e., portions, environment, boundaries, stitching, fold lines, etc. and in each case it must be made entirely clear what they do mean. In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967).
Therefore, a statement in the specification describing the broken lines or semi-transparent color should be included to read similarly:
--The (broken lines or color) shown in reproductions 1.2 and 1.3 depict portions of the Coffee Percolator that form no part of the claimed design. The (broken lines or color) shown in the reproduction 1.4 represent environmental structure of the Coffee Percolator that form no part of the claimed design. --
Reproductions
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are suggested 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.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures 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 figures. All replacement sheets should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement thereof, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by U.S.C 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Refusal Reply
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).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The references cited are considered relevant to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” link in the PatFT: Patents column.
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 andrew.kerr@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.
When Responding 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-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KERR (571-272-2184). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to
Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Krakower can be reached on 571-272-4496.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, visit:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW KERR/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2917