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 .
Foreign Priority:
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Application No. CN202430097026.7, filed on 02/27/2024. Examiner notes the proper documents to perfect this claim are present in the application file, having been retrieved successfully by the office on 06/04/2025.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. §112:
The merits of the case have been carefully re-examined in light of applicant's response received 07/29/2025. It is the examiner's position that the original rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) and (b) have NOT been fully over overcome by applicant's amendment and is therefore repeated and made FINAL. The standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) and (b) is now expanded to include indefinite claim scope as a result of unclear and inconsistent application of broken lines to indicate portions of the article that are removed from the claim.
Additionally, the claim is now finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the replacement drawings filed 07/29/2025 introduce new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure filed 05/31/2024 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 USPQ323 (CCPA 1981).
The annotated reproduction on the following page presents EXAMPLES of the issues in a single figure and does not represent a full accounting of all new matter that is evident throughout the remaining figures. Applicant should review the full disclosure and correct any new matter issues that are found.
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.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended subject matter or amend these areas to be consistent with the original disclosure. See the annotated drawings on the following pages for more details on the above noted rejections.
PNG
media_image1.png
1328
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1327
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1327
998
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
254
1359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image5.png
92
193
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CORRECTED REPLACEMENT DRAWING SHEETS ARE REQUIRED IN REPLY TO THE OFFICE ACTION TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF THE APPLICATION.
Any amended replacement drawings sheets must include the following per 37 CFR 1.21d:
All of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is to be amended.
The label of “Replacement Sheet” must read in the page header per 37 CFR 1.84c.
An explanation of all changes to the drawings in either the drawing amendments or remarks of the amendment paper.
If a drawing figure is to be cancelled applicant is advised of the following:
Remove the canceled figure from the replacement drawing sheet.
If an entire drawing sheet is cancelled, a marked-up copy labeled “Annotated sheet” showing the cancelled view(s) is required.
Where necessary, renumber the remaining drawing figures and utilize additional replacement sheets
Make appropriate changes to the corresponding figure descriptions for consistency.
**It is strongly suggested that applicant submit a complete set of drawings with all figures present so that correct figures are included in the printed patent.**
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
NOTE: Examiner suggests applicant consider filing Power of Attorney in this application along with form PTO/SB/439 Internet Authorization to allow for the emailing of preliminary changes to the reproductions in advance of filing the official response. Examiner offer implies a single preliminary review. This offer does not allow for multiple submissions or repeated efforts prior to the official response.
Conclusion:
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) and has been made FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 mark.philipps@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 USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
/MARK T. PHILIPPS/Design Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2915