DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are also used in the claims, and examples are listed below in the rejection under 35 USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language, failing to confirm with current U.S. practice. The method steps which goes to make up the process must be clearly and positively specified. The claims must be in one sentence form only. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Due to the numerous instances of indefinite language the entire scope of the invention cannot be determined. A determination of appropriate prior art and comparison of the prior art to the invention cannot be performed due to the numerous instances of indefinite language. An attempt has been made to note as many of the instances of indefinite language as possible, but a complete response to this Office Action will require full review of all of the claim language by the applicant. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
Claim 1, line 2 recites “to choose a pattern and create it,” the language is unclear as to what is being required as part of the method. The format used is written in a “how to” language. Claims should actively claim the method steps. It is recommended using the gerund form of verbs to actively claim the method steps. For example, instead of “to choose a pattern,” an actively claimed step would recite “choosing a pattern.” The claims as a whole should be revised to remove the “how to” language and to use actively claimed steps.
Additional instances include: claim 1, line 7 “to create a pattern”; claim 1, line 17 “to trace a pattern”; claim 1, line 45 “to apply”; claim 1, line 51 “to finish the craft”; claim 1, line 55 “to create a glittering effect”; claim 1, line 59 “to complete the craft”; claim 1, line 63 “to finish”.
Claim 1, line 15 includes a “.” That ends a sentence and starts a new sentence. Each claim must be written as one sentence.
Claim 1 line 3 includes a “.” after S1. Applicant should avoid using “.” as punctuation as the claim should be a single sentence that ends with a “.”. Additional instances include: claim 1, line 5 “S2.”; claim 1, line 6 “a.”; claim 1, line 10 “b.”; claim 1, line 17 “a.”; claim 1 line 22 “b.”; claim 1, line 24 “a.”; claim 1, line 25 “b.”; claim 1, line 48 “a.”; claim 1, line 49 “b.”;
Claim 1, line 3 recites the limitation "the preferences". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s also unclear as to what would constitute a preference.
Additional instances of lack of antecedent basis include: claim 1 line 4 “the situation”; claim 1 line 6 “the case of attachments”; claim 1 line 6 “the required pattern”; claim 1 line 6 “the attachment”; claim 1 line 7 “the carbon paper”; claim 1 line 8 “the desired picture”; claim 1, line 8 “the copy paper”; claim 1, line 10 “the required pattern”; claim 1, line 11 “the adhesive side”; claim 1 line 17 “the edges of the pattern”; claim 1 line 18 “the metal wire”; claim 1 line 20 “the metal wires”; claim 1 line 20 “the connection points”; claim 1 line 22 “the screw 1”; claim 1 line 22 “the correction position”; claim 1 line 22 “the folded wire pattern”; claim 1 line 24 “the pinched metal wire”; claim 1 line 25 “the metal wire outline”; claim 1 line 26 “the bottom PET tape”; claim 1 line 26 “the UV lamp”; claim 1 line 27 “the blank space”; claim 1 line 28 “the bottom layer”; claim 1 line 20 “the colored sand or powder”; claim 1 line 31 “the palette”; claim 1 line 32 “the ideal ratio of powder to glue”; claim 1 line 33 “the outline of the delicate metal wire”; claim 1 line 33 “the toner mixture”; claim 1 line 35 “the texture”; claim 1 line 36 “the sand-to-glue ratio”; claim 1 line 38 “the artwork”; claim 1 line 39 “the sand glue mixture”; claim 1 line 39 “the metal wire”; claim 1 line 43 “the UV glue”; claim 1 line 46 “the craft”; claim 1 line 46 “the surface”; claim 1 line 47 “the interior”; claim 1 line 47 “the front”; claim 1 line 48 “the delicate glue crafts”; claim 1 line 51-52 “the handicraft”; claim 1 line 52 “the back of the craft”; claim 1 line 53 “the green PET tape”; claim 1 lines 55-56 “the bottom surface of the craft”; claim 1 line 56 “the back”; claim 1 line 58 “the excess glue”; claim 1 line 58 “the wire frame”; claim 1 line 63 “the production of filigree enamel crafts”; claim 1 line 63 “the appropriate accessories”; claim 3 line 1 “the second step”; claim 3 line 2 “the No. 1 screw”; claim 7 lines 1-2 “the installation accessories”; claim 7 lines 4-5 “the production process for the filigree UV jewelry”; claim 8 line 3 “the situation”; claim 10 line 1 “the mixed glue”.
The word “it” is used in numerous locations and it’s typically unclear as to what “it” is. For example, claim 1, line 3 recites “it could either draw…” and it’s not clear what “it” is. Additional instances of using “it” that are unclear include: claim 1, line 14; claim 1 line 30; claim 1 lines 55-57.
Claim 1 line 3 recites “when selecting a pattern” the claims do not previously require “selecting a pattern” and it’s not clear that “selecting a pattern” is required. Instead of using the language “when,” it is recommended actively claiming “selecting a pattern” and to further limit the step an example of suitable language is “selecting a pattern comprises…” and then include the language that further limits the step. Additional instances of using “when” include: claim 1, line 5, line 10, line 14, line 32; claim 7, line 3; claim 8, line 1;
Claim 1 lines 2, 16, 23, 29, 41, 44, 50, 54 and 62 are written as headings rather than actively claimed method steps.
Claim 1 line 30 recites “that you want.” This language is indefinite and unclear.
Claim 1 line 32 recites “the ideal ratio of powder to glue” and its unclear if the “ideal” is a requirement of the claim.
Claim 1 line 34 recites “an even look.” This language is indefinite and unclear as the language is subjective.
Claim 1 line 35 recites “that may have formed.” This language is indefinite as unclear if the use of a lighter is required or not.
Claim 1 line 36 recites “should be.” This language is indefinite as it’s if the specific sand to glue ratio is required.
Claim 1 line 40 recites “additional drying and lighting time may be necessary.” It’s unclear if this step is required and the claims do not appear to previously require a drying or lighting.
The term “suitable” in claim 1, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Other instances of relative terms where are indefinite include: claim 1, line 4 “suitable”; line 8 “desired”; line 22 “correct”; line 24 “lightly”; line 25 “small”; line 27 “evenly and thinly”; line 28 “on top”; line 31 “small amount”; line 31 “small spatula”; line 32 “ideal”; line 33 “delicate”; line 33 “small”; line 37 “small”; 38 “slowly”; line 52 “carefully”; line 63 “appropriate”; claim 3, line 2 “beforehand”;
Claim 1, line 61 recites “this step may be skipped if not required.” This language renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 2, line 2 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additional instances of “such as” include claim 10.
Claim 2, line 3 the phrase "etc" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are indefinite as its unclear and do not appear to relate to any previously established claim feature, and it’s unclear what is being required.
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 9 use the term “could” and its unclear if the limitations related to the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
January 8, 2026