Notice of 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 .
Restriction - Keep Together
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 – Figs. 1 – 8, 17, 18, are drawn to a rinse basin with a rectangular structure, hexagonal interior structures, and eleven circular features within the hexagonal structures.
Embodiment 2 – Figs. 9 – 16, 18, are drawn to a rinse basin with a rectangular structure, hexagonal interior structures, and eleven circular features within the hexagonal structures. Similar to Embodiment 1.
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391,123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ. 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are visually similar. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Any rejection of one embodiment over prior art will apply equally to all other embodiments. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40,152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments.
PTO-1449 - Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed April 19, 2023 does not fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(b) because:
(b5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
NON-FINAL ACTION
Drawing Objection
The drawings do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.152 for the reasons set forth below:
Poor Line Quality: The overall line quality is poor in Fig. 1. All drawings must be made by a process that will give satisfactory reproduction for patent printing. Every line, number and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction yet light enough so as to not bleed together. 37 CFR 1.84(l). Correction is required to show crisp, clean, clear lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
1006
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement Drawings
Replacement drawing sheets must include all of the drawing figures appearing on the prior version of the sheet, even if only one drawing figure is being amended. However, if the applicant cancels a drawing figure, follow these steps:
Do not include the canceled drawing figure on the replacement drawing sheet.
Where necessary, renumber the remaining drawing figures.
Make appropriate changes to the drawing figure descriptions for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show renumbering of the remaining drawing figures.
If all the drawing 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 drawing figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
Label the replacement drawing sheets in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner rejects the amended drawing figures, 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).
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to for the reasons stated below:
The figure descriptions do not describe the views of the drawings clearly and accurately, MPEP 1503.01, subsection II. Therefore, the descriptions of Figs. 1 and 9 should be amended as follows:
-- FIG. 1 is an elevated front perspective view of a rinse basin showing a first embodiment of the new design;
FIG. 9 is an elevated front perspective view of a rinse basin showing a second embodiment of the new design; --
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because:
The statements [The claimed ornamental design is shown embodied on an assembly that may be used, for example, as a multifunctional sink (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, laundry). In an illustrative example, the claimed ornamental design may operate as a rinse basin. This disclosure encompasses one or more embodiments which may, for example, include one or more surface textures and/or patterns (e.g. as shown in FIG. 17 and/or FIG. 18) on one or more surfaces such as shown in FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 9. The embodiment of FIGS. 1 – 8 may, by way of example but not in limitation, operate as an apron front sink. The embodiment FIGS. 9 – 16 may by way of example, but not in limitation, operate as an undermount and/or overmount sink. Embodiments are shown with a step-down ledge at a top-front and top-back edge of the sink. In some embodiments, by way of example, but not in limitation, one or more stepdown ledges may be omitted.] attempts to broaden the scope of the claimed design beyond what is shown in the reproductions. Attention is directed to the fact that any description which describes variations and modifications of the design which are not shown in the drawings is not permitted, MPEP 1503.01. Therefore, the examiner suggests the removal of this statement from the specification.
The scope of the claimed design does not appear to be shown consistently in Figs. 1 and 7. In Fig. 1, the indicated line is shown in broken lines. However, in Fig. 7, the indicated line is shown in solid lines. The examiner suggests clarification and consistency to the scope and appearance of the claimed design. See annotated drawings below for identification of inconsistencies.
PNG
media_image2.png
667
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
908
1323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised that all of the preceding issues should be addressed to overcome this rejection, without the introduction of anything that was not shown in the original disclosure (i.e., new matter).
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA N WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6457. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 5pm.
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, Shannon Morgan can be reached at (571)-272-7979. 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.
/SAMANTHA WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2915