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 .
Amendment Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of the response submitted by the applicant on June 10, 2025, including remarks, replacement drawings, amendments to the specification and amendments to the claim.
DETAILED ACTION
In view of the newly submitted replacement drawing sheets of June 10, 2025, which amends the title and figure descriptions, the previous objections have been overcome and are now WITHDRAWN.
The merits of the claim have been reconsidered in light of the remarks and newly submitted replacement drawing sheets of June 10, 2025. However, said amendments presented further inconsistencies in the disclosure. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) is therefore made again and FINAL for the reasons set forth below.
Additionally, the following new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the introduction of new matter is presented below and is made FINAL.
1. Drawing Objections
A) As the provisions of 37 CFR 1.84 (except 1.84(c)) do not apply to international design applications designating the United States (See 37 CFR 1.1061(b), MPEP 2920.04(b)), the figure numbers should not be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." (see Annotation A).
For compliance with the requirements, Applicant must change the figure legends back to the numbers only (1.1, 1.2, etc.) as originally filed. This must be corrected on the drawing sheets and specification. Correction is required.
B) Reproductions 1.3 and 1.4 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as intro-ducing 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 amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, several features of the now disclaimed elements seen on the sides in 1.3 and 1.4 have added elements and/or changed contours differing from that seen in the original disclosure (see Annotation B). Much of the details of these rear elements have been left out of the drawing figure, therefore making it inconsistent with the original disclosure.
To overcome this objection, Applicant may reenter all of the details of the elements seen in the side views as originally disclosed or may choose to return the disclosure to the original photographs and disclaim the features by use of a different method allowed in Hague applications. Correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
705
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. Replacement Drawing Sheets
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. 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 drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, 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.
3. Feature Description Objection
The following formal matters are noted:
The text currently included in the specification prior to the claim, beginning and ending with “Any shading is...in the drawings." is unnecessary and should be deleted, as it is already understood that the surface shading is used to represent the character and contour of a claimed design.
Applicant is not required to correct the above-noted formal matters but may wish to do so to place the application in better form.
REJECTION(S)
4. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
The claim is AGAIN AND 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 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 remains indefinite and nonenabling because the disclosure is unclear, as the exact
shape and appearance of the design cannot be determined due to the reasons set forth below:
The amended disclosure changes the angles and positioning of several of the drawing views. In the new 1.1 front view, the exact number, shape and contour of the various protrusions seen inside the raised lid is unclear and cannot be fully understood (see Annotation A).
PNG
media_image2.png
754
1161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), it is suggested that Applicant:
Amend 1.1 front view to show the shape and contour of the protrusions; OR, convert the disclosure to the originally filed photographs.
It is suggested that Applicant submit large, clear drawings which show the details of the design clearly and accurately without the addition of new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). Applicant is reminded that if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading or additional views after filing may constitute new matter (37 CFR 1.152(II)).
5. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the amendment to the drawings is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclo-sure 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 following:
A) Various details seen inside the seven front tuners have been removed (see Annotated Drawing Letter A).
B) The shape and contour of various features have been changed:
1. Rectangular switch on front right side is now circular (see Annotated Drawing Letter B1).
2. Thickness of ‘prop arm’ holding up the raised lid at the top of the amplifier has been changed in all applicable views (see Annotated Drawing Letter B2).
PNG
media_image3.png
845
1170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3. The hexagonal shape originally seen at the base of some port connectors in the 1.2 rear view have been changed in the new disclosure (see Annotated Drawing Letter B3).
4. The overall shape of the cylindrical feature originally seen at the center of the rear view has been changed in the new 1.2 view (see Annotated Drawing Letter B4).
PNG
media_image4.png
788
1115
media_image4.png
Greyscale
5. Interior details have been added to the base of the seven protruding elements as seen from the bottom view (see Annotated Drawing Letter B5).
6. Various details and structure have been altogether removed from the bottom right side area in the 1.6 bottom view (see Annotated Drawing Letter B6).
PNG
media_image5.png
882
1738
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 amend the drawings so that they are consistent with the originally filed drawings.
It is further suggested that Applicant consider amending the drawings by resubmitting the originally filed photographic disclosure and using coloring as an alternative option to disclaim the previously noted non-enabled areas of the original 1.5 and 1.6 side views.
Applicant is advised that in accordance with Hague Administrative Instruction Section 403, matter excluded from the claim may be indicated:
(a)(i) in the description referred to in Rule 7(5)(a) and/or;
(a)(ii) by means of dotted/broken lines, or coloring.
Per MPEP 2920.05(c), for clarity of the disclosure, Applicant is encouraged not to simply rely on a description to indicate matter shown in a reproduction for which protection is not sought, but rather to also identify the matter for which protection is not sought through the use of broken or dotted lines or coloring.
It is suggested that Applicant submit large, clear drawings which show the details of the design clearly and accurately without the addition of new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). Applicant is reminded that if the surface shape is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of surface shading or additional views after filing may constitute new matter (37 CFR 1.152(II)).
6. 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).
7. 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 Keli.Hill@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.
8. 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 USPTO Patent Electronic System (formerly EFS Web/Private Pair) 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
9. Conclusion
The references cited, but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
The claim stands FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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.
10. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELI L. HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4375. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th: 6a-5p. 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, Garth Rademaker, can be reached at (303) 297-4274. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
General questions regarding patent examining policy, assistance with filling out forms, or general information concerning rules, procedures and fees, should be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center (IAC). The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners and experienced Primary Examiners who answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure. Assistance is available at the IAC Monday – Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm (EST) at (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center, and https://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 Gin USA or Canada), or 571-272- 1000.
/KELI L HILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2922