DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because the description of FIGs 9 and 10 refer to a “door hinge” rather than properly characterizing it as environmental structure. Since the door hinge is not part of the claimed design but merely shown to illustrate the environment of use, the figure descriptions recommended to be revised to state that the design is shown “ in an environment of use.”
Additionally, the specification fails to include a broken line statement as required under 37 CFR 1.152. When broken lines are used to show unclaimed subject matter such as environment, the specification must include a statement to clarify that the broken lines represent environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design.
--FIG. 9 is a supplemental top front perspective view showing the door block installed in an environment of use;
FIG. 10 is a supplemental top plan view showing the door block in an environment of use.--
Special Description Objection
The special description statement is objected to for lack of clarity, which may lead to confusion as to what is actually being claimed versus unclaimed. In its current form, the language fails to distinctly separate unclaimed portions of the article form environmental structure and contains grammatical errors. The existing special description, “The broken line FIG. 1-8 illustrate portions of the door block which form no part of the claimed design. The additional broken lines in FIG. 9-10 illustrate environmental structure which forms no part of the claimed design.”
The examiner recommends amending the special description to the following:
--The broken lines in the drawing depict portions of the door block, environment, and /or features that form no part of the claimed design.--
Rejection under 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.
1)In FIG. 10, the indicated portion of the article identified as annotation “A” depicts the upper corner of an environmental structure in solid lines, implying that it is part of the claimed design. However, in FIG. 9, the same upper corner is shown in broken lines, consistent with the figure description indicating it as unclaimed environmental matter. This inconsistency between the figures creates confusion as to the scope of the claimed design, making it unclear whether annotation “A” is intended to be claimed or merely represent unclaimed environmental structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
563
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In design application, all drawings must consistently depict claimed and unclaimed subject matter. A feature cannot be shown as claimed in one figure and unclaimed in another. Applicant must amend the drawings to consistently depict annotation “A” across all figures, using either solid or broken lines as appropriate, to clearly and accurately reflect the intended scope of the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
593
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
577
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2) In FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, the element identified as annotation “C” lacks sufficient clarity to determine what is being claimed. Without an indication of whether this feature has depth, is recessed, raised, or merely surface-level, the boundaries of the claimed design remain indefinite. Furthermore, other figures, such a FIG. 1, depict unclaimed rectangular inserts on the opposite face of the article (annotation B), but the relationship between those features and annotation “C” is not explained or visually clarified , which further contributes to the ambiguity.
Applicant must amend the drawings to clearly depict the nature of annotation “C” in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, and ensure a consistent representation of claimed and unclaimed subject matter. Additional views, shading, contour lines, or sectional drawings may be required to resolve these issues and enable proper examination of the claimed design.
Applicant is advised not to add new matter into the application in any attempt to resolve the deficiencies noted above. Any changes must be must be fully supported by the original disclosure as filed.
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.
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).
Contact Information
Direct any inquiry concerning any communication from the examiner to Andrew Golson whose telephone number is 703-756-1325. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
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”, is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012.
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).
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Email Communications
If email communication is preferred, please email the examiner at andrew.golson@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. If both email and telephonic means are required, include preferred 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 first paragraph of the contact information of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
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. 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”: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. Also, see MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Patent Center
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). 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.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, reach out to, Messina Smith whose telephone number is 571-272-3137. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Conclusion
The application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to inventor's or joint inventors' disclosure.
/A.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2936
/JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2921