Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 35/525,976

Cup lid

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 20, 2024
Priority
Jan 22, 2024 — CN 2024300425222 +1 more
Examiner
SOUTHWOOD, YEN LE
Art Unit
2922
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Beijing Shenchuang Century Information Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allowance Rate
171 granted / 175 resolved
+37.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
77.4%
+37.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 175 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . GENERAL INFORMATION Election Groups I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, Embodiments 1, 2, 5-9, Reproductions 1.1-1.7, 2.1-2.7, 5.1-5.7, 6.1-6.7, 7.1-7.7, 8.1-8.7, and 9.1-9.7, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election of Group III, Embodiment 3, 4, and 10, Reproductions 3.1-4.7 and 10.1-10.7, was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 13th, 2026. 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 reproductions do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The following portions are unclear: The elements on the bottom surface of the claimed design, depicted in reproductions 3.7, 4.7 and 10.7, are considered not fully disclosed. The views provided are inadequate to cover the scope asserted and are not sufficient for a complete disclosure. The views do not provide a clear understanding of the full three-dimensional configuration of this portion of the claimed design, specifically the depth of the elements on the bottom surface of the lid. The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are considered to be indefinite and non-enabled. See reproductions below for reference: PNG media_image1.png 1029 2950 media_image1.png Greyscale To overcome the rejection above, 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 OR lightening the area and including a dot-dash broken line boundary line. New drawings are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views. If converting drawings to broken lines, a statement similar to the following should be included in the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132): -- The broken lines show portions of the Cup with Lid that form no part of the claimed design. -- If lightening drawings and utilizing dot-dash boundary lines, a statement similar to the following should be included in the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132): -- The dot-dash broken lines show boundary that form no part of the claimed design. -- Applicant is cautioned that if corrections made addressing the above described indefinite and nonenabled elements are not evident from the original disclosure as filed, the additional and/or corrected views of those elements/structures after filing may comprise new matter (37 CFR 1.121). When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Replacement Reproductions  Corrected drawing sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet of the reproductions should include all of the views appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one view is being amended. The view number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing view is to be canceled, the appropriate view must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining views 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 views. Each drawing sheet of reproductions 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).     Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) (see 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02) 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.     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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1133760
INSULATED BEVERAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent D1133725
HANDLE FOR A BEVERAGE CONTAINER
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent D1131123
Drinking glass
10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent D1125943
Mug
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent D1119439
Coffee grinder electric household
2y 3m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
98%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+2.5%)
1y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 175 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month