NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a divisional of Application No. 29/647,006 under 35 USC § 120. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application.
The examiner has considered applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a divisional of Application No. 29/647,006. Basis for a divisional under 35 USC § 120 is supported by Figs. 29 - 35 in the 05/09/2018 drawings. The conditions for priority under 35 USC § 120 have been met (MPEP 1504.20).
Title Objection
Applicant's title “Organizer System and Components of Organizer System” is objectionable because it refers to multiple separate articles: an organizer system AND components for an organizer system. Additionally, the title is referred to inconsistently throughout the application, as the figure descriptions describe it as “a frame of the organizer system”. The title of the design must designate the particular article, which is the subject of the design and identify the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public. 37 CFR 1.153, MPEP 1503, I. The title of the design should be amended to clearly be directed to a single article of manufacture, such as:
-- Frame for an Organizer System --
The title must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted.
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because the broken line description does not expressly identify the purpose of the broken lines in addition to defining their relationship to the claimed design (MPEP 1503.01). Therefore, the special description describing the broken lines should be amended to read as follows:
-- The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the [INSERT AMENDED TITLE] that form no part of the claimed design.--
The specification is further objected to because the description of figure 1 contains a typographic error. The additional letter “a” following the word “of” in the description of figure 1 should be removed.
Claim Rejections - 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling due to the following:
The two circular portions and surrounding rectangular portion immediately below the handle uprights in figure 2 cannot be understood without conjecture because they are not shown in any of the other views. The exact shape, configuration and depth of these portions cannot be determined:
PNG
media_image1.png
579
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The complex surfaces on either side of the circular portions and surrounding rectangular portion immediately below the handle uprights in figure 2 cannot be understood without conjecture because they are not clearly and consistently shown throughout the views. In figure 2, the portions are shown as being symmetrical and having 3 distinct sections. However, in figure 1, the portion on the left side shows only two sections, and the portion on the right side does not appear to be drawn to a solid shape, rather it appears as separate solid edge lines with no materiality in between:
PNG
media_image2.png
579
1233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is not possible to determine the full appearance of the portions of the rear of the frame in figure 3 that are not also visible in figure 1 because there is no rear perspective view provided. A majority of the solid line areas in figure 3 could be understood as being extruded, recessed, or surface indicia at any depth. The indefinite portions are colored gray in the annotated image below:
PNG
media_image3.png
884
963
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The three rectangular solid edge line areas on the bottom of the frame in figure 7 cannot be understood because they are not disclosed in any of the other views. It is not possible to determine whether the lines represent surface indicia or if they represent recessed portions, and at what depth these lines are present:
PNG
media_image4.png
287
1560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The corners of the frame are shown inconsistently in broken and solid line. In figures 1, 5, the top, front, right corner appears to be in broken line, however in figures 2, 3, and 6, the corner appears to be in solid line. It is not clear whether the angled front surfaces of the corner form part of the claimed design:
PNG
media_image5.png
989
1118
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 shows the rear of the left triangular leg in solid line where it is shown in broken line in the other views:
PNG
media_image6.png
610
378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A solid line is shown on the leftmost raised portion underneath the handle in figure 1 that is shown in broken line in figure 3:
PNG
media_image7.png
1584
1254
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additional solid surface lines are shown at the top of the frame in figure 2 that aren’t present in the other views. The purpose of these lines is unclear:
PNG
media_image8.png
649
686
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1299
1524
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Three of the eight small rectangular portions at the top of the second row of large openings are shown having broken bottom edge lines in figure 2, but are shown completely in solid lines in figure 1:
PNG
media_image10.png
599
688
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
1235
1507
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Because of the reasons stated above, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently among the views. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
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 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.
If preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. §132 and CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
The claimed design stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 (a) and (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darcy Fabre whose telephone number is 703-756-1394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. ET.
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, Messina Smith can be reached on 571-272-3137. 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.
/DF/Examiner, Art Unit 2936
/KEVIN K RUDZINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2911