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 .
OFFICE ACTION
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of applicant's response received 10/14/2026. It is the Examiner's position that the rejection of record under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) has not been overcome by applicant's amendment and is hereby repeated and made FINAL.
Examiner notes that the Final reflects only points not addressed by applicant in their response. It is therefore repeated, and elaborated on below.
Claim Rejection– 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) 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 for the following:
Upon further consideration by examiner, the suggested broken line statement in the 08/21/2024 office action presents indefiniteness in that as boundaries, it is now unclear what part(s) of the speedometer the broken lines are bounding. As the original drawings show no shading, it would be conjecture to assume that one side or the other of the “boundary lines” is not part of the claim. (See illustration below)
PNG
media_image1.png
646
1363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner wishes to add that the broken line is drawn in such a manner that it is easily confused with solid line. Additionally, since the broken line is only seen on the front of the article, but not the back or the sides, and since there are no shade lines, its very unclear which portions of the article are claimed.
Therefore, to attempt to overcome this rejection, applicant should create a clear distinction between claimed and unclaimed portions of the article. This may be accomplished by:
Ensuring the broken line exists as a boundary across ALL surfaces intending to be claimed (including the sides and back of the article), and adding shade lines to those portions intending to be claimed. (See example illustration below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
572
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner wishes to note that this illustration is just a quick example, and not a formal, properly submittable drawing.
OR:
Using two types of broken line to clearly delineate the boundary between claimed portions of the article and unclaimed portions of the article. (See example below from published U.S. design patent number D976,131)
PNG
media_image3.png
559
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
If the applicant chooses this means of overcoming the rejection, a new broken line statement delineating each type and purpose of the broken line must be added to the specification, following the figure descriptions and preceding the claim.
Suggested language:
--The dash-dash broken lines depict portions of the article which forms no part of the claimed design. The dot-dash broken lines delineate the boundary of the claimed design. --
Conclusion
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b).
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting <http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html> and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE MARTINE SUITER whose telephone number is (571)272-9573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 9:30am-6:30pm and Thursday 10am-2pm EST.
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, SANDRA SNAPP can be reached on (571) 272-8364. 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.
/A.M.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2922
/SANDRA SNAPP/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2914