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
Election
Groups I-X, Embodiments 1-10, Reproductions 1.1-10.7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election of Group XI, Embodiments 11 and 12, Reproductions 11.1-12.7 was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 7th, 2026.
Reproduction Objection
The reproductions are objected to for the following reasons:
The reproductions are not of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished. There is a lack of clean, sharp lines throughout the different views of the claimed design. Most of the lid portion of the claim is depicted in heavy thick lines that look like black masses. This causes the appearance of the described design to be uncertain. (37 CFR 1.1026 Reproductions shall comply with the requirements of Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions.) See reproductions below for SOME examples of poor quality in the reproductions:
PNG
media_image1.png
737
2180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
851
2058
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
955
2546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1161
2758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised that the examiner has attempted to identify all the instances of poor line quality but due to the poor quality of the reproductions, it is possible not every instance may have been identified. The above reproductions are intended to show examples of the problems; the onus is on the applicant to set forth a clear and consistent disclosure.
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. New reproductions are suggested so that the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
Corrected reproduction 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 reproduction sheet should include all 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 reproduction should not be labeled as amended. If a 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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 Objection
The claim is objectionable. As stated in 37 CFR 1.1025, the specific wording of the claim in an international design application designating the United States shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name of article) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted for purposes of the United States. See MPEP 2909. Accordingly, additional language describing the article beyond the title (specifically, “parts of bottles and food containers”) must be removed from the claim. For proper form, the claim must be amended to read:
-- Claim: The ornamental design for a Bottle, as shown and described. --
Claim Rejection ‐ 35 USC § 112
The following rejection applies to Embodiment 11 and Embodiment 12.
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 non-enabling 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 11.3 is inconsistent with reproduction 11.4. Reproduction 11.3 appears to depict curved elements on either side of the lid that protrude outward from the cap. Reproduction 11.4 appears to depict an elongated element protruding outward from the cap. This inconsistency is also present in reproduction 12.3 and 12.4. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image5.png
744
1626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 11.4 is inconsistent to reproduction 11.1. Reproduction 11.1 appears to depict a small section, medium section and large section on the neck of the claim. Reproduction 11.4 appears to depict an additional section on the back side of the claim. This inconsistency is also present in reproduction 12.4 and 12.1. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
913
1868
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To overcome the above portion of the rejection, 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.
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 underneath the curved protruding portion of the lid of the claim, depicted in reproductions 11.1 and 11.7 in embodiment 11 and 12.1 and 12.7 in embodiment 12 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 three-dimensional configuration of this portion of the claimed design. The perspective view provided does not disclose the elements in question as they are obstructed by the curved protruding portion of the lid of the claim. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image7.png
913
1868
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The horizontal element on the bottom surface of the claim, depicted in reproductions 11.6 and 12.6 is considered not fully disclosed. The view provided is inadequate to cover the scope asserted and is not sufficient for a complete disclosure. The view does not provide a clear understanding of the three-dimensional configuration of this portion of the claimed design (specifically the depth). The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are indefinite and non-enabled. See reproductions below for reference:
PNG
media_image8.png
494
1530
media_image8.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 the claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views.
If applicant elects to amend the reproductions to contain 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 Bottle form no part of the claimed design. --
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 USC 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 consider 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