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 .
Claim to Priority
The instant application is a continuation of applicants’ earlier application 29/757,821. In the instant application, applicants have removed portions of the coupler from the claim by converting them to broken lines in two embodiments of different scope. This was done along boundaries that were evident in the original disclosure of the parent application, and as such no new matter has been introduced. The change in scope also creates a patentable distinction between applications.
Incorporation by Reference
This application incorporates by reference U.S. and Registered Community Design applications. All the material from the U.S. and Registered Community Design applications 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 U.S. and Registered Community Design applications that is not present in this application forms no part of the claimed design.
Restriction Not Required
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 – Figs. 1A – 1G
Embodiment 2 – Figs. 2A – 2G
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 Pat. 1967).
The above-identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. The difference between embodiments is related conversion of solid lines to broken lines between Embodiments (specifically in relation to the bottom and left portions of Embodiment 2). These modifications are found in the prior art and are therefore considered obvious, as the prior art shows that it is obvious to multiply two corners to be four corners. 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.
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to for the following.
The labeling of the Figures 1A – 2H are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1), which requires that figures be labeled in consecutive Arabic numerals, so the following figures must be relabeled as the following:
1A: Figure 1
1B: Figure 2
1C: Figure 3
1D: Figure 4
1E: Figure 5
1F: Figure 6
1G: Figure 7
1H: Figure 8
2A: Figure 9
2B: Figure 10
2C: Figure 11
2D: Figure 12
2E: Figure 13
2F: Figure 14
2G: Figure 15
2H: Figure 16
The drawings must be properly labeled as noted above.
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.
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to for the following.
As the drawing Figures 1A – 2H must all be relabeled, their corresponding figure descriptions must also be relabeled to their corrected Arabic numerals.
Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See /n re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and /In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
The claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim in United States Patent No. D1,066,751 (App. No. 29/928,518; the patent application which claims the benefit of priority as a continuation application of the instant application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, they are identical in shape and configuration with the only difference being the claiming or not of an angled surface at the transition between horizontal surfaces to vertical surfaces claimed in the instant application and not claimed in the patent. The addition or removal of an angled surface at a transition juncture connecting a horizontal surface to a vertical surface is obvious in the prior art. A teaching is not provided as the difference in scope noted is obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1051
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
640
1063
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
773
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
938
1115
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See /n re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and /n re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).
Summation
The claim stands rejected as noted above.
Those 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 on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 4 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SYDNEY MARGARET PARSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2934
/T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912