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
Acknowledgement of Applicant’s Response
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received on July 22nd, 2026. The specification objection has been overcome by applicant’s amendment and is hereby withdrawn. The rejection of record under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) has not been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment and has necessitated additional rejections as set forth below. Because the new rejections were not previously raised, this action is not being made final.
Prosecution Reopened
The indication of Allowability set forth in the previous Quayle action is withdrawn. After careful further consideration, a new rejection of record is set forth in the following correspondence. Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on the sole claim considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below.
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to because they contain minor inconsistencies. (Ex parte Asano, 201 USPQ 315, 317). The inconsistencies are as follows:
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent to reproductions 1.2-1.4 and 1.6-1.7. Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict a solid on the back edge of the nozzle element. Reproductions 1.2-1.4 and 1.6-1.7 appear to depict the entire top surface of the lid in broken lines. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
1109
1926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above objection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. The reproduction or reproduction number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions 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 reproductions. If all the reproductions 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 reproductions 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.
Claim Rejection ‐ 35 USC § 112
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
The inconsistencies between the reproductions cause the appearance of the described design to be uncertain. ALL reproductions must be consistent. Inconsistencies are listed as follows:
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent to reproduction 1.7. Reproduction 1.7 appears to depict a protruding rectangular element depicted in solid line on the inside surface of the handle. Reproduction 1.5 appears to depict two protruding elements with tapered sides between the handle and the body of the lid depicted in both broken line and solid line. The shape of the elements in reproduction 1.5 is inconsistent to the shape disclosed in reproduction 1.7. It is unclear if the protruding elements in reproduction 1.5 is the same one depicted on the interior handle of the claim in reproduction 1.7 or if the protruding elements in reproduction 1.5 correlate with the other protruding element depicted in broken line on the side surface of the lid in reproduction 1.7. Further clarification is requested by way of explanation or amended drawing so the examiner can clearly understand the appearance (exact shape) and scope of the claim (if the elements in reproduction 1.5 are in broken line or solid line). See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image2.png
924
1613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The inconsistent shading causes confusion to the claim.
Reproduction 1.6 appears to show the top edge of the claim as curved however reproduction 1.5 depicts the top view with no shade lines on the top of the handle except for the back part which is depicted with straight lines. This causes confusion as to the exact appearance/curve of the top surface of the handle and where the curve starts and ends. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image3.png
1098
2031
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The shading in reproduction 1.7 also causes confusion to the claim. In the other views provided, the shading discloses a concave curve to the handle, however the shading in reproduction 1.7 appears to depict a convex curve to the handle. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image4.png
954
2771
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New drawings are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views.
The reproductions do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The bottom of the handle, depicted in reproduction 1.7 is considered not fully disclosed. Because of the lack of shading and because there are no other views in which this element is visible, the examiner does not know if the bottom surface of the handle is flat or curved. The article is subject to multiple interpretations and cannot be fully understood without conjecture. The area and features indicated by arrows below are considered to be indefinite and non-enabled. See reproduction below for reference:
PNG
media_image5.png
858
756
media_image5.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by converting them to broken lines. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
Additionally, applicant is reminded that unclaimed subject matter must not show shading.
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 U.S.C 112 (a) and (b). 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
