DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on July 23, 2024 has been acknowledged and entered by the examiner. After careful consideration, it has been determined by the examiner that applicant’s amendments have necessitated the following rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 § (a) and (b). This rejection is now made final.
Specification
For clarity and proper form, it is recommended that the figure descriptions for Figures 1.1 and 1.6 be amended to read:
--Figure 1.1 is a perspective view of a SLAT SUPPORT BEAM;--
and
--Figure 1.6 is a top view thereof; and--
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C § 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 dash-dot lines shown are not shown consistently among the figures. Figures 1.1-1.4 and Figure 1.6 show dash-dot boundary lines around four perimeters of the beam. applied Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.7 are void of these dash-dot boundary lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The scope of the claimed design is not clear. It is not clear where the claim ends and begins in reference to the dash-dot lines, broken lines, and solid claim lines. It is not clear if the areas between the broken lines is claimed, if the area between the solid lines and broken lines up to the dash-dot lines is claimed, and the area between the broken lines and dash-dot lines is claimed. Please see an illustration below, indicating which areas are not clear if they are claimed or not.
PNG
media_image2.png
754
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed design is considered indefinite and nonenabling because there is no written description of what the dash-dot lines shown in the drawings represent. The two most common uses of broken lines are to disclose the environment related to the claimed design and to define the bounds of the claim. Structure that is not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any portion of an article in which the design is embodied, or applied to, that is not considered part of the claimed design. See In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). Unclaimed subject matter may be shown in broken lines for the purpose of illustrating the environment in which the article embodying the design is used. Unclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof (MPEP 1503.02, subsection III). In order to overcome this portion of the rejection, it is recommended that applicant insert a dash-dot broken lines statement, directly preceding the claim, that reads “The dash-dot broken lines shown in Figures 1-7 illustrate the bounds of the SLAT SUPPORT BEAM that form no part of the claimed design.”
In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently throughout the views. If some parts cannot be clarified without creating a new appearance, applicant may wish to remove those parts from the claim by converting them to broken lines. However, any amendment must not introduce new matter and must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. See MPEP 1504.04(I)(C) for written description, and see 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter.
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.
Conclusion
The claimed design is FINALLY rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) and (b), as set forth above.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA Q LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0208. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Justin Jonaitis, can be reached on 571-270-5150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SAMANTHA Q LAWRENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2921
Prosecution Insights