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 .
The response and drawings received 10 June 2026 are acknowledged. However, the amendments to the drawings have not fully resolved the non-final rejection, and as a result a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) & (b) is repeated and made final.
Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b)
In view of the new drawings submitted on 10 June 2026, the claim is again and FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, (pre-AIA ), 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 nonenabling because the shape, appearance, and description of some portions of the design are unclear due to inconsistent disclosure of the claimed design as currently depicted. Specifically, the following is noted:
The replacement drawings submitted 10 June 2026 partially resolved the issue outlined in the non-final rejection. The side and rear flaps appear consistent in length in replacement drawing Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. However, the exact appearance of the rear flap cannot be understood due to inconsistent depiction of the length of the rear flap in Fig. 3. Figs. 4 and 5 show the rear flap to be approximately the same length as the side flaps. However, in Fig. 3 the rear flap appears significantly shorter than the side flaps.
PNG
media_image1.png
1121
1103
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the application contains drawings of the invention in multiple views, the inconsistencies in the different figures present confusing and contradictory conditions that require the examiner to rely on conjecture to understand the intention of the applicant.
Those portions of the design that are inconsistently depicted may be made consistent in order to overcome that portion of the rejection. The drawings must consistently depict the claimed design.
Correction of the drawing is suggested.
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 suggested 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.
Summation
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Caitlin M Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-2410. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Michelle Wilson can be reached at (571)272-7639. 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.
/C.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2912
/T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912
