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
Applicant’s response filed 8/8/2025 has been acknowledged. Due to the publication of the secondary reference being after the filing date of the parent application, the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn. The claim is now rejected under a newly 35 USC 103 rejection. The action is non-final.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Webalys, “Set of Text Icons” dated February 21, 2018 found on site: https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/set-of-text-icons-gm922404392-253205026 in view of Palau, “Edit Text Pixel Perfect Well-crafted Vector” dated Nov 5, 2017 found on site: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/edit-text-ui-pixel-perfect-wellcrafted-749333377
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
PeterPal teaches a GUI having an overall appearance with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design. Both designs show a rounded square icon with two squares and horizontal lines.
However, the following differences are found between PeterPal and the claimed design:
There are two horizontal lines aligned centered with the two squares.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
127
96
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
149
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The secondary reference Palau teaches that it is possible to have two horizontal lines aligned centered with the two squares. It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill not later than the effective filing date of the present claim to modify Webalys by changing the three horizontal lines to two horizontal lines aligned centered with the two squares. Moreover, such substitution of one known design element for another known design element in the same field would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer. The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-YEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0217. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using aUSPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Holly Thurman can be reached on (571) 272-8068. 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. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: httos://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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAO-YEN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2919