The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
REFUSAL
Applicant’s election of Group I (reproductions 1.1-1.7) is acknowledged. Group II and III (reproductions 2.1-3.7) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected designs. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/13/2026.
In view of the cancellation of Groups II and III, the reproductions 2.1-3.7 and the corresponding descriptions have been cancelled.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) because the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same nor does it particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
1. Claimed ring [A] shown in Reproduction 1.1 is inconsistently shown as a contour ring [A’] in reproductions 1.2 and 1.3-1.7 (shown by example in 1.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
513
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2. The exact shape, appearance and depth/location of the surfaces and portions shown within the grey highlighted areas in reproductions 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 cannot be understood. Specifically, since 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 are illustrated in a 2-dimensional illustration technique, and due to the lack of additional corroborating view(s), exact features of those surfaces and portions are unclear (e.g. one or more three-dimensional attributes such as depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown) and are left to conjecture.
PNG
media_image3.png
944
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
949
948
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In an attempt to overcome the rejection, applicant may submit new drawing views with all details of the claimed design consistently shown throughout without introducing new matter. Additionally, applicants may convert all surfaces and portions shown within the grey highlighted areas in reproductions 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 to distinctly broken lines.
Furthermore, a broken line statement preceding the claim should be added in the specification (e.g. “The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the Gas Lighter that form no part of the claimed design.").
Lastly, to avoid confusion to the scope of the claim, all contour/shade lines shown within the grey highlighted areas in reproductions 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 should be removed (see Surface Shading - MPEP 1503.02 II).
Reproductions
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are suggested in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. All replacement sheets should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement thereof, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by U.S.C 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Refusal Reply
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).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 andrew.kerr@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 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-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
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KERR (571-272-2184). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jae Liang can be reached on 571-270-0229.
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.
/ANDREW KERR/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2921
Prosecution Insights