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 .
Drawing – Objections
The drawings are objected to due to the following inconsistencies:
Broken line inconsistencies
There are inconsistencies between the Specification and the drawing disclosure. Specifically, there are TWO different styles of broken lines within the drawing disclosure; one style of broken lines is illustrated with longer inconsistent dashed lines that blend into solid lines, is utilized at the inner bottom handle of the claimed design, while the second style of broken lines is illustrated in a shorter evenly spaced dashed lines, as seen at the heel of the blade. However, the current broken line statement has described only ONE purpose for the broken lines in the drawings, instead of TWO different purposes for the TWO different styles of broken lines. Inconsistencies between what is disclosed between the Specification and in the Drawings could cause confusion in regard to the scope of the claim. When broken lines are included in the drawings, their use must be defined in the specification, i.e., environment, boundary, stitching, fold lines, etc. Dotted or broken lines may mean different things in different circumstances, and it must be made entirely clear what they do mean. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967). See MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III). For this particular situation, it appears that these two different styles of broken lines, have the same meaning, to depict portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design. Please see annotated drawings on the next page. Should this understanding of the claim be incorrect, the TWO different styles of broken lines will not have to be amended in the drawings, however an amended broken line statement will be required that states the TWO different purposes for the TWO different styles of broken lines. If this understanding of the claim is correct, then in order to overcome this objection, amended drawings should be submitted that consistently illustrate the same style of broken lines, STYLE B, throughout the drawing disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112(a)&(b)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a)&(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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following inconsistencies and unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for:
Inconsistencies
Broken features have been inconsistently applied throughout the disclosure, making it difficult to clearly identify the exact scope of the claim. Specifically, Figures 1, 2, 7, and 8 show a broken line feature on the bottom grip of the handle, indicating this detail forms no part of the claim. However, Figure 3 and 6 show this as a solid line. See annotated drawings on the next page. Correction is required to show all such features consistently throughout the disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
1044
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inconsistencies/Unclear Parts
Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8 show a broken line feature on the blade. However, this broken line feature is shown inconsistently. There is a solid line feature shown in the perspective views Figures 7 and 8, that cannot be clearly reconciled with the absence of surface shading and limited views. See arrow in annotated rendering below for identification of surface in question.
PNG
media_image3.png
705
1031
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Replacement Drawings
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)&(b) as set forth above.
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the
cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent
Number Search” button.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE M ACHEN ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1995. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 TO 5.
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, Calvin E Vansant can be reached at 571-272-5714. 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.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2937
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2919
Prosecution Insights