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 .
New U.S. Counsel Rule for Foreign Patent Applicants and Patent OwnersIt appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). Applicant is advised that, effective July 20, 2026, foreign-domiciled applicants and patent owners must be represented by a registered patent practitioner. See 37 C.F.R. §§1.31(a)(2), 1.31(a)(3), and 1.33(b)(3); Required Use by Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent Practitioner, 91 FR 13510 (Mar. 19, 2026), effective July 20, 2026.
When representation is required, documents submitted in patent applications must be signed by a registered practitioner. 37 CFR 1.33. An unsigned or improperly signed amendment or reply will not be entered. MPEP 714.01.
The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450."
Objection – Specification
Descriptions
The following description included in the specification is unnecessary as there is no color shown in the drawing disclosure: “the design does not claim protection for a specific coloring;”
Furthermore, Figure 1 is described as “part of a bottle” in the descriptions section, however this is inconsistent with the given title of “Closing Means for Bottles.”
For the purpose of clearly describing what is shown in the drawings (see MPEP 1503.01, subsection II), the above description in regard to color must be deleted from the specification, and the description for Figure 1.1 amended for consistency with the given title.
Title
The given title of the article is Closing Means for Bottles, which is a title that is commonly known by the public and deemed acceptable. It is, however, unclear from the disclosure if the article shown is intended to for use in the area of food and beverage containers, or if the article is intended to represent a packaging article, or an article used with a pharmaceutical product. For example, the aperture within the top surface could be used with a straw, syringe, or another means of extraction. As a result of the multiple interpretations of the design, Examiner is unable to make a complete search or provide appropriate classification assignment.
The title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public. See MPEP 1504.04, subsection I.A. A title descriptive of the actual article aids the examiner in developing a complete field of search of the prior art and further aids in the proper assignment of new applications to the appropriate class, subclass, and patent examiner, and the proper classification of the patent upon allowance of the application. It also helps the public in understanding the nature and use of the article embodying the design after the patent has been issued.
Applicant is therefore requested to provide a sufficient explanation of the nature and intended use of the article in which the claimed design is embodied or applied. See MPEP § 1503.01. Additional information, if available, regarding analogous fields of search, pertinent prior art, advertising brochures and the filing of copending utility applications would also prove helpful. If a utility application has been filed, please furnish its application number. This information should be submitted in the form of a separate paper and should not be inserted in the specification (37 CFR 1.56). See also 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. proper examination of the claim under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for:
Figure 1.7 shows solid line details applied within the bottom interior of the article of which the exact depth and three-dimensional configuration of these features is unclear and cannot be reconciled with any other views. See features highlighted with shading in annotated drawing of Figure 1.7 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
888
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is therefore recommended that applicant amend these features to form no part of the claim by converting to broken lines (see MPEP 1503.02, subsection III). Alternatively, applicant may cancel Figure 1.7 from the disclosure.
Note: if applicant chooses to amend parts of the article to form no part of the claim by converting to broken lines, a statement to describe these broken lines must be included in the specification, immediately following the figure descriptions and preceding the claim (see MPEP 1503.01, subsection II, MPEP 1503.02, subsection III and 37 CFR 1.154 (b) (5)). Examiner provides the following example of an appropriate statement:
--The broken lines are shown for the purpose of illustrating parts of the article that form no part of the claimed design. –
Because of the insufficient information in the drawings provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. All inconsistencies should be remedied or otherwise satisfactorily explained, amended to form no part of the claim, or figures cancelled [if such does not negatively impact understanding of the remaining disclosure]. Inconsistency that cannot be either corrected or satisfactorily explained should be amended to form no part of the claim with lightweight broken lines. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter.
If applicant chooses to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. 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 Drawings
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. If all the figures 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 figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or the 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.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
The references cited but not applied are considered the most pertinent art related to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
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 mace 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 Interviews
A telephonic 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 :/ywww.uspto.gov/‘patent,'forms/forms-patent-applications-fiied-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
catherine.posthauer@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.
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 Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/
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/paterits-niaintaining-pateni/responcirig-office-actlons
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Catherine Posthauer whose telephone Number is (571) 270-0233. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/. Status information for published applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished
applications are available through Patent Center only. For more information about the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights