DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election
As set forth in the election submitted 01/12/2026, applicant elects without traverse Group II (Figs. 2.1-2.8 and 3.1-3.8). Accordingly, Group I (Figs. 1.1-1.8) stand withdrawn from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b).
OBJECTIONS
Specification
The examiner objects to the specification as follows:
The title is inconsistent throughout the specification and claim. Specifically, the specification names the title “Tube Closure” but the claim reads “Tube Closures”. Further, The title, “Tube Closures is objected to because it is directed to more than one article of manufacture. See MPEP 1503.01. For clarity and accuracy in designating the particular article, the title, and each occurrence of the language of the title, must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted, to read:
--Tube Closure--
REFUSAL
Claim Refusal — 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is refused under 35 USC § 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling as follows:
The appearance and shape or configuration of the design cannot be determined or understood due to an inadequate visual disclosure (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically,
In Figs. 1.6 and 2.6, the examiner is unable to determine the exact configuration of the area, highlighted in gray below, on the bottom of the closure. As currently disclosed, the surfaces on the bottom of the closure are not clearly shown as being on the same plane as each other or what might be recessed or raised above other elements. Therefore, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The visual disclosure of the claimed design is of such poor quality that its overall shape and appearance cannot be understood (MPEP § 1504.04):
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the reproductions contain pixelated and thick black lines which obscure the exact appearance of the claimed design, exampled arrowed to below. The lines, numbers and letters must be uniformly thick and well defined, clean, durable and black. See 37 CFR 1.1026. Therefore, as currently disclosed, one skilled in the art would have to resort to conjecture to make and use the design.
PNG
media_image3.png
346
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because of the inadequate disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently among the views. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
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 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 renumbered 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 as new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
Claim Refusal — 35 USC § 112 (b)
The claim is refused for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is indefinite because the reproductions include, in the figure(s), broken lines that are not described in the specification, and the scope of the claimed design cannot be determined.
If the broken lines represent portions of the article or environmental structure for which protection is not sought, applicant may overcome this refusal by inserting a statement similar to the following into the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132):
--The broken lines shown in the drawings depict [portions of the TITLE or environmental structure or whatever else they may be] that form[s] no part of the claimed design.--
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 haley.schnebele@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
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 CFR1.33(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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim is refused under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY K SCHNEBELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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 examiner’s supervisor, George Ulsh can be reached on (571)270-1433. 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.
/H.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2922
/GEORGE J ULSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2922