DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Information
Applicant’s amendments of March 24, 2024 are acknowledged. The merits of the application have been fully reconsidered in view of applicant's amendments. However, the response to the rejections made under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) do not provide adequate basis for overcoming the rejection. For the reasons listed below the rejection of record is hereby repeated and made FINAL.
Objection
Drawings
Insufficient Broken Line Spacing
The spacing of broken lines in the drawings is insufficient and may lead to confusion as to the claim scope. The broken lines used in the drawings do not clearly distinguish from solid lines, especially when reduced in size to two-thirds. The scale to which a drawing is made must be large enough to show the mechanism without crowding when the drawing is reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. 37 CFR 1.84(k). All broken lines must be amended to add significant spacing between line segments so that they clearly distinguish from the solid lines.
Corrected drawings submitted in response to this Office action must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
1222
1258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement Sheets
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.” 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).
Claim Rejection – 35 USC 112(a) and (b)
The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because:
Spatially Unclear Elements
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because some elements of the design cannot be understood from the limited views shown. This prevents the design from being enabled, and confuses the scope, as it is unclear if the claimed design includes one or many appearances possibly demonstrated by those lines. See annotated drawing below for the affected areas.
In particular, Reproduction 1.1 and 1.5 STILL have elements that the exact depth REMAIN unable to be reconciled with any other views. See annotated drawing below for the affected areas.
PNG
media_image2.png
820
1233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
602
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Inconsistencies
The claimed design is shown inconsistently between views. The exact appearance and configuration of portions of the design cannot be determined thus the claimed design is subject to multiple interpretations and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim non-enabling. See the annotated illustrations below for an example if the inconsistent views.
The tailfeather elements shown in Reproduction 1.5 is NOW inconsistently shown with Reproduction 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. See annotated drawings below for affected elements.
PNG
media_image4.png
902
2775
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1357
1693
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The beak element in Reproductions 1.1 & 1.3 are inconsistently shown with 1.6 and 1.7. A dividing line is shown in Reproductions 1.1 and 1.3 not shown in any other views. See annotated drawings below for affected elements.
PNG
media_image6.png
922
1999
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The head element in Reproductions 1.4 is NOW inconsistently shown with 1.3. See annotated drawings below for affected elements.
PNG
media_image7.png
853
1717
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The tail element in Reproduction 1.5 has multiple portions that are NOW inconsistently shown with other views. This appears to be a result of amending the claim by removing the highlighted areas in the non-final rejection in ISOLATION without consideration of the other views of the affected elements. Applicant is reminded that any amendments made to the claim should be applied globally to all views of the affected element. Moreover, there are portions that where the boundaries of the claim have no antecedent basis as it relates to the original disclosure. To overcome this portion of the rejection the examiner recommends converting the affected elements to CONSISTENTLY rendered lines in ALL views of a particular element. See annotated drawing below for affected portions.
PNG
media_image8.png
840
1028
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The head element in Reproductions 1.5 is NOW inconsistently shown with 1.6. See annotated drawings below for affected elements.
PNG
media_image9.png
753
1821
media_image9.png
Greyscale
If the appearance of the design cannot be determined or understood due to an inadequate visual disclosure, then the claim, which incorporates the visual disclosure, fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor(s) regard as their invention (MPEP 1504.04(I)(A)).
In order to overcome this rejection, applicant may amend the claim so that the description of the claim is in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Elements which are non-enabling can be removed from the claimed design through conversion to broken line. Elements which include interior areas with unknown depths can be amended to include a broken line immediately within the solid-line edge. Alternatively, the affected elements which are non-enabling can be removed from the claimed design through conversion to broken line.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, applicants are advised to take care to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Similarly, in amending the claim, applicants are advised to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and make sure the amendment is supported by the original disclosure.
Conclusion
The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Melvin Davis whose telephone number is 571-272-6451. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon – Fri 11:00- 7:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Michael Stout can be reached at (408) 918-7558. 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.
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.
/MELVIN L DAVIS/
Design Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2924
/MICHAEL C STOUT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights