DETAILED ACTION 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. Acknowledgement of Election Applicant’s election of Invention I (FIGS. 1-11) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). In applicant’s reply to the Office action, unelected FIGS. 12-17 must be cancelled. Additionally, the descriptions of FIGS. 12-17 must be deleted from the Specification. Objections to the Drawings Partial Views FIGS. 1-4 and FIG. 9 are objected to because they each show an enlarged view in the same figure from which the enlarged view is taken. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes , the view and the enlarged view must be labeled as separate views. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(2). In addition, in regard to FIG. 1, it is unclear how the enlarged view relates to the standard view. See example shown below. Shading FIGS. 10-11 are objected to because they include solid black shading which is not permitted in drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m). See example shown below. Unelected Views The drawings include views drawn to an unelected invention. Figures 12 through 17 must be deleted. Objections to the Specification Inaccurate descriptions The Specification is objected to because the d escriptions of the figures do not accurately describe the figures. For example, the Specification describes that FIG. 2 is a “corner view,” which is not understood as a proper view. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. See 37 CFR 1.84(h ). Moreover, FIGS. 1-4 and FIG. 9 all appear to also include an enlarged view which is not described at all in the figure description. Additionally, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 are each described as “a top perspective view,” but these views are different from one another, rendering these descriptions unclear. In regard to FIGS. 10-11, although each of the se views is described as an “environment view,” it is unclear what is meant by this description. The figure descriptions are not required to be written in any particular format; however, they must describe the views of the drawings clearly and accurately (MPEP 1503.01 (II)). Unelected Views The figure descriptions include descriptions of views of FIGS. 12-17 which are directed to the unelected invention. These figure descriptions must be deleted. 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 applicant regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because 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). In regard to claim FIG. 1, it is unclear what the enlarged view is showing relative to the standard bottom view show in the figure and how it relates to the claimed invention. See example shown below. Similarly, i n regard to claim FIG. 2, it is unclear what the two enlarged views are showing relative to the “corner” view show n in the figure and how two distinct enlarged views can be taken from the same portion of a standard view. See example shown below. In regard to FIGS. 10-11, it is unclear what is being shown, as they are both described as an “environmental view . ” Moreover, the articles shown in FIGS. 10-11 are not consistent with the article s as shown in FIGS. 1-9. See example shown below. It is suggested that the applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design show ing the design clearly and consistently. Replacement Drawings A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application. If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. Avoidance of New Matter 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). References cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) , as set forth above. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rochel Rimelspach-Zare whose telephone number is (703) 756-1708. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8am until 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Susan Krakower can be reached at (571) 272-4496. 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. 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. /R.L.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 2936 /MICHELLE E. WILSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2912