DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on 06/09/2026 has been fully considered. The amendments to the drawings have overcome the objectionable matters described in the nonfinal rejection dated 12/09/2025, however, disclosure does not provide for certainty as to the exact scope of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) were not addressed in the remarks or amendments. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) are given again below and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a)
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to as follows:
Applicant has included proposed amendments to the specification within the reply/request for reconsideration rather than separately as an amended specification. Additionally, a clean version without marking has not been supplied. The examiner is unable to make any amendments on behalf of the applicant until the time of an allowability notice. See MPEP 1302.04
Therefore, the broken line description should be amended to read similar to:
-- The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the Vertical Mounting Assembly that form no part of the claimed design. –
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The claim is again and FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The disclosure does not provide for certainty as to the exact scope of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture. See MPEP 1504.04 II
Specifically:
In Figs. 2, 4 and 9 the disclosure does not provide certainty where exactly the claim begins and ends. Several lines transition between broken and solid. Without resorting to conjecture, the disclosure dose not confirm what portions of these lines or surfaces are intended to be claimed or not. Therefore, a question arises as to exactly what is being claimed, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. The annotated image has been provided for example purposes only, however, all corresponding figures should be addressed.
PNG
media_image1.png
1456
1468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figs. 5 and 6 the disclosure does not provide certainty where exactly the claim begins and ends. It is unclear if the lines annotated below are intended to be claimed or not.
PNG
media_image2.png
649
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figs. 2, 4 and 9 the disclosure does not provide certainty, what areas and surfaces are intended to be claimed and where exactly the claim begins and ends. Therefore, the claim boundaries are not clearly disclosed and the scope of the claim is uncertain as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined. The annotated images have been provided for example purposes only, however, all corresponding figures should be addressed.
PNG
media_image3.png
1456
1468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This portion of the rejection may be overcome by clearly distinguishing what portions of the article the applicant considers claimed and not claimed. The examiner suggests consulting MPEP 1504.04(I)(A) regarding “Scope of Protection”.
Note, an amendment that changes the scope of a design by either converting originally-disclosed solid line structure to broken lines or converting originally-disclosed broken line structure to solid lines would not introduce new matter because such amendment would not introduce subject matter that was not originally disclosed. See MPEP 1504.04 (I)(B)
Replacement Sheets
If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must comply 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.
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).
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” button.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-9590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-3:00 PM EST.
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, Supervisor, Justin Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. 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.
/K.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2924
/JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights