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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s response received 2/17/2026. The objection to the reproductions and rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been overcome. However, amended figure 1.7 presents new matter. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) due to the presence of new matter.
Furthermore, the provisional Non-statutory Double Patenting Rejections have not been properly addressed. The examiner notes that disclaiming the rim and interior of the cup does not render the claim patentably distinct from the co-pending applications. As noted on page 5 of the Refusal mailed 11/21/2025, a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground.
The examiner notes that the applicant filed terminal disclaimers in response to the same Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection outlined in application 35/524,113- though as of yet the terminal disclaimers have not been approved in application ’113. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that terminal disclaimers should be filed in each of the co-pending applications because the rejection is appropriate in both directions in each instance.
In accordance with MPEP 1504.06(II), a design-design non-statutory double patenting rejection does not always have to be made in both of the conflicting applications. For the most part, these rejections will be made in each of the conflicting applications; but, if the rejection is only appropriate in one direction, it is proper to reject only one application. The criteria for determining whether a one-way distinctness determination is necessary or a two-way distinctness determination is necessary is set forth in MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.4 and 5.
Refusal
Claim Rejection- 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the drawings of 2/17/2026 introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure.
The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure to change the sidewall profile of the interior of the cup. The perimeter of the broken line interior bottom has been shrunk. Effectively, the original interior bottom has been cancelled and a new broken line interior bottom has been added. Adding broken line subject matter and wholesale cancellation of solid line subject matter constitutes new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The broken line interior bottom should be enlarged as seen in figure 1.7 of the original disclosure indicated above.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or amend the drawings to be consistent with the original and with each other.
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, 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.
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. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (see 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. The corrected drawings must not contain new matter (35 U.S.C. 132; 37 CFR 1.121).
Non-statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The claim is finally, provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending Application Numbers 35/524,113; 35/524,161; and 35/524,112 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending applications show cups with the same overall visual impression as the claimed design. Specifically, the co-pending applications involve either minor differences in appearance with respect to proportions (35/524,113 and 35/524,161) or they involve the equivalent design depicted in a different medium (35/524,112). The claimed design is not found to be patentably distinct over the co-pending applications. The examiner notes that, although applicant may not show reproductions of the same design (embodiment) in multiple mediums, alternative mediums may be used to depict the equivalent design in another embodiment. (See MPEP 1503.02(V), fourth paragraph). Therefore, the four co-pending applications could have been filed as a single application with 4 different designs (embodiments).
PNG
media_image2.png
1455
1323
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1360
1203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1412
1282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that there are minor inconsistencies between the line drawings and the 3-D renderings but that these inconsistencies do not render the claims patentably distinct. Rather, the inconsistencies between the line drawings and the 3-D renderings are the very reason that designs should be presented in a single medium.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
In summary, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) due to the presence of new matter and thrice provisionally refused on the basis of non-statutory double patenting.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case
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' , may be used for this purpose: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 tia.polidori@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
Please note that the USPTO transacts business in writing.
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including Refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, applicants may only submit replies to Office actions via:
Online through the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https:/Awww.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
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIA R POLIDORI whose telephone number is (571)272-9235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM (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, Jae Liang can be reached on 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.
Hague- Reply Reminder
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).
/TRP/Examiner, Art Unit 2921
/JAE LIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2921