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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of the response submitted by the applicant on May 18, 2026, including Applicant’s Arguments, replacement drawings, amendment to specification.
Applicant's arguments and the newly submitted replacement drawing sheets of May 18, 2026, have been fully considered. Although the applicant disclaimed the non-enabled areas seen in different views of the drawing, there are multiple inconsistencies between different views of the new replacement drawing. Therefore, the rejection is made again and the claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
In view of the newly submitted replacement drawing sheets of May 18, 2026, the following new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the introduction of new matter is presented below and is made FINAL.
Foreign Priority Acknowledgement: Improper Certified Copy Submitted
The certified copy which must be filed is a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed. Certified copies ordinarily consist of a copy of the specification and drawings of the applications as filed with a certificate of the foreign patent office giving certain information. Certified copies include those retrieved by the Office in accordance with a priority document exchange program. See MPEP § 215.01. A copy of the certified copy filed by applicant, including a copy filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, will not satisfy the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(g) for a certified copy. See MPEP § 502.02, subsection V. "Application" in this connection is not considered to include formal papers such as a petition. A copy of the foreign patent as issued does not comply since the application as filed is required; however, a copy of the printed specification and drawing of the foreign patent is sufficient if the certification indicates that it corresponds to the application as filed.
Objection to Claim
By Amending the title of the application to COMBINED METHANE EMISSION AND WATER LEVEL MONITORING DEVICE , for accuracy, the claim must be amended to read as follows (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025):
--We claim:
The ornamental design for a COMBINED METHANE EMISSION AND WATER LEVEL MONITORING DEVICE as shown and described.--
Objection to Drawing
Reproductions 1.3,1.5,1.6 drawing view is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as intro-ducing new matter not supported by the original disclosure as the disclaimed areas seen in different views of the drawing are different from the original drawing. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, Applicant has included several broken lines details in the new Reproductions 1.,1.5,1.6 views that were not present at all in the original disclosure (see Annotated Drawing Letter X).
PNG
media_image1.png
1157
1793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this objection, Applicant should remove the newly entered contour lines in the disclaimed areas seen on reproduction 1.3,1.5, and 1.6. Applicant is advised that due to the details in these areas being difficult to decipher in the original drawings, the now disclaimed areas should following the general outline of the original feature shapes and not add details/contours that were not visible due to the poor quality of the original disclosure. Correction and consistency is required.
Rejection under 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 new drawing is 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).
Specially, there is no support in the original disclosure for the following:
The exact shape and appearance of the front, right and left side view is inconsistent between the original drawing and the new replacement drawing (See corresponding annotated drawings shown below).
A-Number of changes in the shape and appearance of the 1.2
Original 1.2 show small circular plate to be slightly protruded while new1.2 doesn’t show the same
The upper edge of the transparent cubical case hasn’t shown in new 1.2
The rectangular openings in the upper section of the 1.2 have been removed in the new drawing
Multiple number of features inside the gap has been removed in new 1.2
The shape and location of two protruded knobs and multiple circular features are inconsistent between the original and new 1.2
Multiple interior structure has been removed from the interior of the rectangular openings in the lower section of the new 1.2
The shape of the protruded feature in the center of the body inconsistent between the original and new 1.2
PNG
media_image2.png
1026
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
B- Number of changes in the shape and appearance of the 1.5
Multiple vertical lines and number of details has been added to the new 1.5 left side view
The blackened rectangular feature in the left side of the original 1.5 has changed to multiple rectangular openings
The shape of the knobs in the left side of the new 1.5 are inconsistent with the original 1.5
PNG
media_image3.png
1005
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
C-The exact shape and appearance of the top side of the claimed design is inconsistent between the original and new 1.7, especially in the details of the interior structure of the four corners of the new 1.7
PNG
media_image4.png
595
832
media_image4.png
Greyscale
D- The exact shape and appearance of the bottom view is inconsistent between the new and original drawing in 1.8. Especially in multiple areas the new 1.8 is shown with extra details of the interior structure and new features that were not present in the original drawing
PNG
media_image5.png
502
1133
media_image5.png
Greyscale
E-Number of changes in the shape and appearance of 2.1
Multiple interior structure have been removed from the rectangular opening in the lower section of the 2.1
The blackened rectangular feature in the center left side of the claimed changed to multiple number of rectangular opening in new 2.1
The shape of the protruded knob in the top side, and upper left side are inconsistent between the new and original drawing
PNG
media_image6.png
952
1068
media_image6.png
Greyscale
F- Number of changes in the shape and appearance of the 2.1
Original 2.1 show small circular plate to be slight protruded while new1.2 doesn’t show the same
The shape of the protruded knob in the top and small circular feature in the left side of the 2.1 are inconsistent
The blackened rectangular feature in the center left side of the claimed design changed to multiple number of rectangular opening in new 2.2
The shape of the protruded feature in the center of the body inconsistent between the original and new 2.2
The shape of the interior structure in the lower section of the transparent cylindrical feature are inconsistent between the new and original 2.2
PNG
media_image7.png
924
1051
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Multiple interior structure have been removed from the rectangular opening in the lower section of the 2.1
G- The exact shape and appearance of the bottom view is inconsistent between the new and original drawings in 1.8. Especially in multiple areas the new 2.8 is shown with details of the interior structure and new features was not present in the original drawing
PNG
media_image8.png
731
1009
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or try to consistently show the shape of the COMBINED METHANE EMISSION AND WATER LEVEL MONITORING DEVICE between the original drawing and the new replacement drawing. The applicant may use the original drawings to avoid further introductions of new matters.
The drawing inconsistencies shown above are examples only. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a clear and consistent disclosure of the claimed design
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
The claim is FINALY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The exact shape and appearance of the combined methane emission and water level monitoring device is inconsistent between different views of the claimed design (See corresponding annotated drawings shown below).
H- The exact boundaries of the claim are unclear from the drawings, making the scope of the claim indefinite. In 1.1,1.2,2.1, and 2.2 show indeterminable areas of claim design. While surfaces that fall between solid lines are clearly understood to be claimed, it cannot be fully understood where other claimed surfaces begin and end (i.e. — surfaces seen between varying solid lines and broken lines). While portion of the outer sidewalls of the transparent case are shown in solid lines, there are areas between the solid, broken lines that make it difficult to determine whether and/or how much of the surfaces seen are included or excluded from the claim (see Annotated Drawings Letters H.)
PNG
media_image9.png
1256
1481
media_image9.png
Greyscale
I- The exact boundaries of the claim are unclear from the drawings, making the scope of the claim indefinite. In 1.1-1.6, and 2.1-2.6 portions of the cubical transparent case in first embodiment and cylindrical case in second embodiment are shown as claimed (shown in solid lines) While other portion of the outer sidewalls of the transparent case are shown as disclaimed (shown in broken lines), these inconsistencies make it difficult to determine whether and/or how much of the surfaces seen are included or excluded from the claim (see Annotated Drawings Letters I.)
PNG
media_image10.png
1985
1740
media_image10.png
Greyscale
J- The bottom of the claimed design in 1.8 and 2.8 are indefinite and non-enabled, as the exact depth, appearance, and contour of the multiple highlighted features seen only in the bottom side view of the claimed design are unclear from the single bottom view in which they are presented (See Annotated Drawing Letter J.) It cannot be fully understood whether these surfaces are on the same plane as the understood outermost surface surrounding them or if they are depressed to one or various depths within the claimed design’s body. Applicant is advised that shade lines that change direction or do not cross contour lines on adjacent surfaces indicate a change in plane and/or appearance that cannot be defined without additional views.
PNG
media_image11.png
968
1409
media_image11.png
Greyscale
K-The exact shape, depth and appearance of the claimed design is inconsistent between all the views of the claimed design. As reproductions 1.1,1.3-1.7 show two protruded knobs in the top side with retails and smaller protruded circular feature in the top left side(See Annotated Drawing Letter K1), while in reproduction1.2 these features are shown without the noted details, causing confusion in exact shape and appearance of the claimed design. As reproductions 1.1,1.3-1.7 show protruded circular feature and four slightly raised circular elements in the top right side(See Annotated Drawing Letter K2), while in reproduction1.2 these features are shown without the noted details, causing confusion in exact shape
PNG
media_image12.png
985
2321
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and appearance of the claimed design.
L-The exact shape, depth and appearance of the claimed design is inconsistent between all the views of the claimed design. As reproductions 2.1,2.3-2.7 show two protruded knobs in the top side with retails and smaller protruded circular feature in the top left side(See Annotated Drawing Letter L1), while in reproduction2.2 these features are shown without the noted details, causing confusion in exact shape and appearance of the claimed design. As reproductions 2.1,2.3-2.7 show protruded circular feature and four slightly raised circular elements in the top right side(See Annotated Drawing Letter L2), while in reproduction 2.2 these features are shown without the noted details, causing confusion in exact shape and appearance of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image13.png
645
1623
media_image13.png
Greyscale
M- The top of the claimed design in 2.7 and 2.8 are indefinite and non-enabled, as the exact depth, appearance, and contour of the multiple circular and rectangular features seen in 1.7 and multiple numbers of the circular features seen in 2.7 are unclear from the single top side views in which they are presented (See Annotated Drawing Letter M.) It cannot be fully understood whether these surfaces are on the same plane as the understood outermost surface surrounding them or if they are depressed to one or various depths within the claimed design’s body. Applicant is advised that shade lines that change direction or do not cross contour lines on adjacent surfaces indicate a change in plane and/or appearance that cannot be defined without additional views.
PNG
media_image14.png
780
1078
media_image14.png
Greyscale
N- The exact shape, depth and appearance of the interior of the transparent cylindrical case is inconsistent between 2.1 and 2.2.
PNG
media_image15.png
570
1095
media_image15.png
Greyscale
For the above-noted reasons, the exact shape of the noted features are open to multiple interpretations and cannot be fully understood without resorting to conjecture. The applicant is advised that due to the limited views included in the disclosure, the clarification of the shape and contours of theses surfaces may likely constitute new matter.
PNG
media_image16.png
5
8
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), it is suggested that the applicant:
Clearly show the scope of the claimed design between all the views of the combined methane emission and water level monitoring device
Attempt to clarify (without the introduction of new matter) or altogether disclaim (using broken lines) the indefinite and non-enabled areas seen in top and bottom views in 1.7,1.8,2.7 and 2.8
Consistently show the shape of the claimed design between all the views of the combined methane emission and water level monitoring device
Applicant strongly advised to used original drawing of March 21,2025 to implement the necessary correction. The drawing inconsistencies shown above are examples only. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a clear and consistent disclosure of the claimed design.
Applicant is advised that in accordance with Hague Administrative Instruction Section 403, matter excluded from the claim may be indicated:
(a)(i) in the description referred to in Rule 7(5)(a) and/or;
(a)(ii) by means of dotted/broken lines, or coloring.
Per MPEP 2920.05(c), for clarity of the disclosure, Applicant is encouraged not to simply rely on a description to indicate matter shown in a reproduction for which protection is not sought, but rather to also identify the matter for which protection is not sought through the use of broken or dotted lines or coloring.
Replacement Drawing Sheets
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 its description removed from the specification. Applicant is advised that for consistency with the originally filed reproductions published by the Hague, and in order to avoid confusion, the original numbering of any remaining figures should remain the same and not be renumbered. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) and under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
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).
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.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
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/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
Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara S Sahneh whose telephone number is (571)272-9652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 8:30 AM-4:00 PM (MT).
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, Justin M. Jonaitis can be reached at (571) 270-5150. 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.
Sara S Sahneh
Examiner
Art Unit 2923
/JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights