FINAL ACTION
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received 06/03/2026. The Examiner has determined that applicant's amendments do not overcome the refusal of record under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) which is set forth again and made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant's argument in rebuttal of the refusal of record has been carefully considered but is found unconvincing. Applicant argues:
The semi-circular elements in Fig. 1.7 are clearly shown in perspective views Figs. 1.1 and 1.8. Based on these views the semi-circular elements can be understood as an indentation on the interior and a depression on the exterior.
However, contrary to applicant’s assertion, while Fig. 1.8 clearly shows the semi-circular elements on the bottom of the container it cannot be assumed that the interior semi-circular elements in Fig. 1.7 have the exact same depth as the bottom elements. Further, the semi-circular elements in Fig. 1.8 are shaped differently than the elements in Fig. 1.7 which further proves a direct correlation between the semi-circular elements cannot be made.
The top perspective view, Fig. 1.1, does show one of the semi-circular elements, however; based on this view it still cannot be understood if the semi-circular area is flat lines or an indentation and if it is an indentation what the exact depths of the different elements are.
The surface shading provided in Fig. 1.7 does not offer any additional information as to the exact depths of the semi-circular elements.
For the above reasons the 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) refusal of record has not been overcome.
REJECTIONS
Claim Refusal – 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is AGAIN AND FINALLY 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 and 7, the examiner is unable to determine the exact configuration of the semi-circular elements, highlighted in gray below, on the inside of the container. These elements indicate complicated, three-dimensional structure that cannot be determined from the views shown. As currently disclosed, these elements are not clearly shown as being on the same plane as the others or what might be recessed or raised above other elements. The surface shading does not offer any additional information for determining the exact nature of the design as shown. 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
783
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
534
media_image2.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 refusal, 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 Drawings
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 reproduction 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
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 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.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. 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
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights