DETAILED ACTION
This application for reissue has been filed to broaden the scope of the design that issued in D1,002,786.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The claim is rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it would appear that it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
The declaration identifies the error as “the patent simultaneously depicts components in multiple positions, but the front panel and bottom flap are configurable in any one of the positions”. This meaning of this error is not understood. It appears from the drawings the applicant is broadening their claim by vacating several areas of the six-panel structure on the front, and the bottom flap. Applicant has the right to broadening their claim, but in that situation, the error is that certain features (as named in the declaration) were claimed in the patent and the applicant has a write to claim a design that omits those features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
This application seeks to broaden the scope of the design that issued in D1,002,786.
MPEP 1503.02: Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter where such amendment complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The structure at the front comprising six panels split into two groups has been amended so that just the middle panel on each side is now claimed. This amendment is found to be acceptable because the boundaries for the remaining two panels appear to be located at the ends of the lines. The amendment appears to comply with the information in the MPEP that a permissible boundary can be created by connecting the ends of existing full lines. While no broken lines are shown, it is assumed that the new boundaries connect the ends of two lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the appearance of the column C is indefinite. This element is disclosed from the front, rear and two sides. However, it is missing from the top view. In addition to the views being inconsistent, the form of the column, as would be explained in plan, is not described. The form relative to the length and width is open to multiple interpretations. For example, the surfaces of the column may be completely curved resulting in an oval form of some sort, or it may have a more rectangular form that only has rounding at the corners. Furthermore, element F is only shown in a single elevation view so it is only described two dimensionally. That is, the depth and resulting form of F is not described.
PNG
media_image3.png
248
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
228
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
229
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
The shade line running along the edge of the end surface B1 appears to be incorrect. The end surfaces appear to be flat. Flat surfaces should be described by groups of straight shade lines that traverse the surface B.
It is unclear whether rectangular element D is correctly shown in the bottom view. It seems odd that this element is fully exposed when the seemingly identical elements on either side of it are only partially exposed. If this appearance is incorrect, it is suggested that element D be reduced to broken line form.
Shade line E appears to be applied to a surface that is no longer claimed. Shading may not be applied to unclaimed surfaces.
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to PHILIP S. HYDER at telephone number (571)272-2621.
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 contact the examiner directly or 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, Justin Jonaitis can be reached on 571-270-5150.
/Philip S. Hyder/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2917
Feb. 9, 2026
psh
/DARLINGTON LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2962