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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to for the following.
There are slight breaks throughout several of the solid lines of the bolt and screw elements within the Figures which makes it difficult to determine whether the lines are meant to be solid or semi-solid. See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
940
1329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
669
969
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
388
1216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Due to poor rendering, the openings within the plate, as well as the connecting elements, appear solid black in Figs. 1 and 2. In accordance with CFR 1.84 (m), solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. This also gives the recesses the appearance of opacity, while other Figures show that these linear recesses are fully open from one side to the other. See below:
PNG
media_image4.png
906
1229
media_image4.png
Greyscale
There appears to be extra lines present within Figs. 5 and 6 which do not correlate with anything shown within the other Figures.
PNG
media_image5.png
567
882
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The drawings must consistently and completely depict the claimed design.
Correction of the drawing is required.
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).
Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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.” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim is again and finally rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 for the following:
The visual disclosure is inconsistent in such a way that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be clearly determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
The visual disclosure is inconsistent and unclear in showing the boundaries of the claimed design. Specifically, the boundaries between the claimed and unclaimed edges and surfaces are unclear, and areas in solid line in some Figures are shown in broken lines in others. Any indication of boundaries (if present) should be in a differentiated broken line (such as a dot-dash line) when there are broken lines present with other meanings (such as depicting unclaimed subject matter). When boundaries are added, they must have basis within the original disclosure (such as connecting ends of the solid line disclosure). It is noted however that the ends of the solid line disclosure where it converts to broken lines is not consistent between views of the claimed design. If boundary lines are added, they must also be specifically described within the specification. In some locations, it is unclear if portions of the edges are claimed, or if these portions are just the confluences of multiple broken lines. See the following page:
PNG
media_image6.png
731
1021
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
256
803
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1055
2361
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
736
944
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
Many elements are shown with inconsistent line breaks, making it unclear whether these structures are claimed or unclaimed. See below:
PNG
media_image10.png
619
1082
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
443
952
media_image11.png
Greyscale
To overcome this portion of the rejection, it is suggested that portions of the design considered inconsistently disclosed be corrected to match corresponding Figure drawings.
Because of the inconsistent and unclear disclosure, 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, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. 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 line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
Summary
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The references cited but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY MARGARET PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 to 3:30.
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, LAKIYA ROGERS, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7145. 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.
/S.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2934
/T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912