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
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the examiner’s non-patent reference Stephanie Iced Beverage Glass, by Mikasa, on Amazon.com, with an oldest review date of January 7th, 2011 (hereinafter “Mikasa”) in view of the examiner’s non-patent reference Macaron Cup, by Pasabahcemagazalari, on Instagram.com, posted August 1st, 2023 (hereinafter “Macaron”).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
The Mikasa reference has an overall appearance with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, specifically:
Both designs show an inverted bell-shaped glass
Both glasses have wide top rim and a body that tapers in width towards the stem
Both glasses show the body of the glass curving inward to connect with the stem
Both glasses show a narrow stem that curves outward to connect to the base
Both glasses show the base of similar width and thickness
Both glasses show a similar thickness in the body of the glass
Both glasses show the well and the body of the glass to be similar in depth and height
See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
757
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed design differs from Mikasa in that the claimed design is opaque and has a wider bottom curve.
Macaron shows a drinking glass that is opaque and has a wider bottom curve. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
759
1332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Mikasa with Macaron by substituting the transparent surface of Mikasa with the opaque surface of Macaron as such a modification is a simple substitution of one known design element for another. Additionally, such a substitution of one known design element (transparent surface) for another known design element (opaque surface) in the same filed of art would have been within the skill and common sense of an ordinarily skilled designer.
It also would’ve been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to slightly widen the base of Mikasa as shown in Macaron to arrive at the claimed design. Such a minor modification of a common ornamental feature would have been within the designer’s experience, creativity and common sense.
Accordingly, the overall visual appearance of the claimed design is found to be obvious over the Mikasa reference in view of the Macaron reference.
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 U.S.C 103.
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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.
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 Yen.Southwood@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.
Responses 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 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
For additional info: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEN L SOUTHWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm 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.
/YEN LE SOUTHWOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights