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 .
Non Final Rejection
Election
This application has been examined. Note is made of the election by applicant of the design shown in Group 4, Embodiment 4, (Reproductions 4.1-4.9). Accordingly, Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (Reproductions 1.1-3.9 and 5.1-7.7) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner without traverse in the papers received 02/11/2026 as being for nonelected designs. (37 CFR 1.142(b)).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), first and second paragraphs, 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.
1) Reproductions 4.3 Left view, and 4.4 Right view: the three dimensional nature of the feature disclosed at the top back side of the water reservoir in back of the latch cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture based on the what is shown and described. In addition, it is unclear to the examiner how it relates to the latch as depicted in Reproduction 4.2 Back view. See examiner’s illustration below:
2) Reproductions 4.2 Back view, 4.3 Left view, and 4.4 Right view: the three dimensional nature of the feature disclosed at the bottom of the water reservoir cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture based on the what is shown and described. See examiner’s illustration below:
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
823
1286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Because the three dimensional nature of the feature disclosed on the water reservoir of Reproductions 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture, the claimed design is subject to multiple interpretations and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without resorting to conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To attempt to overcome this rejection, the applicants may amend reproductions 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 to show this feature as forming no part of the claimed design, or provide evidence that the present disclosure is properly enabled in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or by submitting an additional reproduction, for example a back perspective view. Matter which is shown in a reproduction but for which protection is not sought may be indicated in the description referred to in Hague Rule 7(5)(a) or by means of dotted or broken lines or coloring, when accompanied by a clear description of such use in the specification. See Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403.
If new reproductions are submitted in an attempt to overcome this rejection, care must be exercised to avoid the introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. The original drawing disclosure represents the claimed design. All features, elements, and lines as presented are the basis from which examination of the claim is conducted. It is critical that the original disclosure filed with the office be of the highest quality, and be the most accurate rendering of the claimed design as possible. The overall design as well as that of individual features must be rendered in such a way that no amount of conjecture is necessary in understanding the claim. New matter is anything (structure, features, elements) which was not apparent (seen) in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible for new matter to consist of the removal as well as the addition of structure, features or elements. For example, it is possible that the removal of lines showing changes in elevation in CAD drawings, which cannot be clearly understood to be such without resorting to conjecture, may also introduce new matter. 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). 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.
Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a reproduction 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The applicants are 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.). See 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP § 2909.02. Thus, the numbering convention used in the original submission should not be amended when responding to this office action.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darryl Dardenne whose telephone number is 571-272-9967. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, and via 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, Jae Liang, can be reached at (571) 270-0229. 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). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2921
/JAE LIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2921