DETAILED ACTION
Incorporation by Reference
This application incorporates by reference U.S. Patent Application No 18/369,475 filed September 18, 2023. All the material from the aforementioned application(s) that is essential to the claimed design is included in this application. Amendments of the claim may be based on the content of the incorporated material. However, with or without a specific amendment, it is understood that any material in the aforementioned application(s) that is not present in this application forms no part of the claimed design.
Specification Objection – Figure Descriptions
The description of FIG. 1 includes the following statement:
“The emblem attached to the clothing string clip is shown in dashed lines.”
This descriptive statement included in the specification is impermissible because broken line descriptions should be placed immediately after the figure descriptions, not in the figure descriptions themselves. Additionally, the broken line statement does not identify and describe the broken lines shown in FIG. 1 as “environment”. The broken line statement provided only describes the broken lines that show portions of the clothing string clip, which would be considered “portions of the article”
Additionally, the view in FIG. 1 shows the claim attached to environmental structure. This should be stated in order to differentiate this view from the following views where this environmental structure is removed. Therefore, it is recommended that the FIG. 1 and 2 descriptions be amended to read as follows:
--FIG. 1 is a first perspective view of a clothing string clip in accordance with the present invention showing an environmental emblem attached to the clothing string clip;
FIG. 2 is a second perspective view without the environmental emblem; --
Specification Objection – Broken Line Statement
The specification is objected to because the broken line statement does not indicate the purpose of the broken lines in the drawing (MPEP 1503.01, subsection II (A)(3)). Specifically, the applicant has stated,
“The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the clothing string clip that form no part of the claimed design.”
Broken lines may indicate portions of the article, boundaries of the claim, or environmental matter. The specification should provide clarity on what the broken lines are showing, and fully describe the use of broken lines in the drawings. The broken lines illustrating the emblem and the string would be considered environmental subject matter. Therefore, it is recommended that the broken line statement be amended to read:
-- The broken lines in the drawings depict environment of the clothing string clip 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) 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 because the drawings disclose features that have not been definitively described by the views provided. These views would not allow one skilled in the art to determine the exact configuration of the design, including shape, contours, features, and depths of elements, without resorting to conjecture.
Specifically, many of the Interior features are only visible from one angle, which is insufficient to convey the details and contours of the design.
PNG
media_image1.png
834
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The image above is included to demonstrate the 112(a) and (b) rejection.
Additionally, the scope is unclear because shade lines, used to show contours of claimed subject matter, is applied to the front surface of the broken line feature in FIG. 1, confusing the scope of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image2.png
623
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The image above is included to demonstrate the 112(a) and (b) rejection.
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.
The design must be represented by a drawing that complies with the requirements of § 1.84 and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design. Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the surfaces represented. (37 C.F.R. 1.152)
If new drawings are submitted in an attempt to overcome this rejection, care must be exercised to avoid the introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. The original drawing disclosure represents the claimed design. All features, elements, and lines as presented are the basis from which examination of the claim is conducted. It is critical that the original disclosure filed with the office be of the highest quality, and be the most accurate rendering of the claimed design as possible. The overall design as well as that of individual features must be rendered in such a way that no amount of conjecture is necessary in understanding the claim. New matter is anything (structure, features, elements) which was not apparent in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible for new matter to consist of the removal as well as the addition of structure, features or elements.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) as set forth above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER J RABIE whose telephone number is (571)272-9623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, GEORGE A BUGG can be reached at (571)272-2998. 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.
/KEVIN K RUDZINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2911
/AJR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2911