DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1: Figs. 1-7
Embodiment 2: Figs. 8, 9
Embodiment 3: Figs. 10-11
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’r Pat. 1967).
The above disclosed embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:
Group I: Embodiment 1 and 2
Group II: Embodiment 3
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs.
During a telephone discussion with Karen Oster, applicant attorney of record, on 01/23/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the design of Group 1 (Figs. 1-9). Affirmation of this election should be made by applicants in replying to this Office action.
Group II (Figs. 10-11) stand withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design.
Drawings
The drawing disclosure meets the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.84; however, the examiner objects to the drawings as follows:
Per applicant’s election, non-elected Figs. 10-11 must be canceled.
Specification
The examiner objects to the specification as follows:
Per applicant’s election and for clarity and accuracy (MPEP 1503.01.II):
The descriptions of non-elected Figs. 10-11 must be deleted.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The claim is rejected under 35 § USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by the NPL_U Govee compatible mounts posted on reddit.com (https://www.reddit.com/r/Govee/comments/1915gii/side_mounts_compatible_with_govee_permanent/?rdt=64663) on 01/07/2025 because the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, or in public use or on sale in this country prior to the effective filing date of the claimed design.
For anticipation to be found, the two designs must be substantially the same. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, supra.
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway, supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Under this standard, the appearance of NPL_U is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. That is, the appearance of the claimed Govee compatible mounts is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer to purchase it supposing it to be the NPL_U Govee compatible mounts.
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEY M KNOTTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1860. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7am-3pm (ET).
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lakiya Rogers can be reached on (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 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.
/B.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2934
/JONATHAN J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912