Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Final Rejection
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of applicant's response received 9/17/2025. The rejection of record under 35 USC 112(a)(b) has been overcome by applicant's amendment and is hereby withdrawn. However, applicant's amendment has introduced impermissible new matter into the claim and necessitates the FINAL rejection under 35 USC 112(a), set forth below. It is noted, however, that the office has determined that the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(a)(b) did not move prosecution forward and has inadvertently lead applicant to introduce new matter. Prosecution on the merits, and a determination of patentability are based on the original disclosure, which is the elements visible to the viewer. Any features or elements that are not visible are not considered and understood not to receive protection in the event a patent is issues. The following rejection describes the current concerns, and suggestions for their resolution.
Numbering of Figures/Figure Descriptions
Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a), consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on). (See 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02.)
In response to a restriction requirement applicant should NOT renumber drawing figures using U.S. design practice convention, nor (if choosing a group/embodiment/figures) to that of the first group/embodiments/figures.
In this case, the figures and their corresponding figure descriptions must be renumbered as Figs. 11 and 18.
Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing new reproductions. Each sheet of reproductions 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).
Claim FINAL Rejection - 35 USC § 112(a)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the drawing amendment introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure:
The addition of views, that disclose elements and surfaces, features, and planes in both embodiments that were not original disclosed. Examiner would have to resort to conjecture to understand them in context of the original disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
283
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
196
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
252
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
258
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
860
759
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
769
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded that new matter (defined below) may be introduced in the original disclosure, either through the addition or removal of features to the claimed design. This can include improving line quality and “clarifying” the drawings. Applicant is reminded that the original drawing disclosure represents the claimed design. All features, elements, and lines as presented are the basis from which examination of the claim is conducted. It is critical that the original disclosure (drawings and title) filed with the office be of the highest quality, and be the most accurate rendering of the claimed design as possible. The overall design as well as that of individual features must be rendered in such a way that no amount of conjecture is necessary in understanding the claim. New matter is anything (structure, features, elements) which was not apparent (seen) in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible for new matter to consist of the removal as well as the addition of structure, features or elements. It is possible that the correction of poor line quality, the removal of digital artifacts, or removal of lines showing changes in elevation in CAD drawings, that cannot be clearly understood to be such without resorting to conjecture, may also introduce new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or applicant may revert to the original disclosure (drawings) and attempt to properly render the claimed elements. Examiner suggests the later, reverting to the original figures 11 and 18.
Conclusion
This claim stands FINALLY rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE L. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Richard Kearney can be reached on (571)272-8312. 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.
/J.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2912
/George D. Kirschbaum/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2961