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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed June 16, 2026. The reproduction objection has been overcome. The amended reproductions contain New Matter. As such, the rejection is made final as set forth below.
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C 112(a)
The claim is finally refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the
description requirement thereof since the amendment is 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 for the change in tonal value in
new 1.5 compared to original 1.5.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Original 1.5)][AltContent: textbox (New 1.5)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
There is no support in the new 1.5 to remove the medial ring circular feature compared to the original 1.5, nor to introduce additional broken inner lines. In addition, the appearance created by the removal of all dark tonal depth of the inner ring was not described in the original, which shows a black ring. The examiner suggests removing the broken inner lines and showing only the outermost one.
See image below.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Original 1.5)][AltContent: textbox (New 1.5)]
PNG
media_image2.png
352
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of
argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession
of the amended claim.
The exact configuration of the inner circular structure in 1.5 cannot be understood solely from the bottom view, and therefore the depth of the feature is unknown. Below is the interior area/element that cannot be understood and is therefore non-enabled. It is therefore suggested that the feature be reduced in tonal value to a discernable difference to match the surrounding unclaimed areas.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1.5)][AltContent: arrow]
Reproduction 1.5 is inconsistently shown. 1.5 is shown in a different tonal value compared to 1.1-1.4. Correction is required to show the tonal value consistently.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
349
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1.5)][AltContent: textbox (1.4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
The applicant is advised that all of the preceding issues should be addressed to overcome this rejection, without the introduction of anything that was not shown in the original disclosure (i.e., new matter).
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost
importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture.
Replacement Reproductions
Replacement reproduction sheets must include all the reproductions appearing on the prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. However, if the applicant cancels a reproduction, follow these steps:
Do not include the canceled reproduction on the replacement reproduction sheet.
Make appropriate changes to the reproduction descriptions for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show renumbering of the remaining reproduction.
If all the reproductions on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required.
A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions.
Label the replacement reproductions in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner rejects the amended reproductions, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 (f).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP
713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s
representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner’) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https:/www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications- filed-or- after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Vanessa.Martinez1@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please
include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the Online via the USPTO's Patent Center (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Refusal Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Conclusion
The claim is refused as set forth above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(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 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 VANESSA MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-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, Lakiya Rogers can be reached at (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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2934
/LAUREN D MCVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2962
Prosecution Insights