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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election
Groups II-IV, Figs. 2.1-2.2, 3.1-3.6, and 4.1-4.6, have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election was made of Group I, Figs. 1-2, without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2025.
Drawings
In view of the election, Figs. 2.1-2.2, 3.1-3.6, and 4.1-4.6 have been canceled.
Drawings
In view of the election, figure descriptions 2.1-2.2, 3.1-3.6, and 4.1-4.6 have been deleted.
Claim Refusal/Rejection - 35 USC § 102
The claim is refused under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the “Miroki” reference (Non-Patent Document Citation No. U) because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The appearance of “Miroki” is identical in all material respects to that of the claimed design, Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F .3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For anticipation to be found, the two designs must be substantially the same. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F .3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, supra.
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copied of one another. Just as 'minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,' so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int’l Seaway, supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.< 728 F .2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Under this standard, the appearance of the “Miroki” reference is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. Furthermore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 5/31/2024, the published date of “Miroki” is 4/28/2023. Accordingly, the rejection under this statute is proper.
Applicants may overcome this refusal by providing convincing evidence that the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and 1) the disclosure was made by the inventor, a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor; or 2) before such disclosure, the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Reply Reminder to All Refusals
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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).
Notes on Correspondence
Applicant may contact examiner via email at patricia.palasik@uspto.gov to arrange a time to discuss the content of this action. Applicant is advised that no content specific to the application should be included in the email with the exception of the application registration number.
The merits of the application may not be discussed via email unless the appropriate authorization for email communication is place in the U.S. application at the USPTO. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via internet communication, e.g. email or video conferencing tools see MPEP 502.03 II (Article 5) for more details.
Power of Attorney
A power of attorney (POA), filed with the USPTO in the specific application is required whether or not attorney has POA authority in foreign IP office. Examiner may not discuss the merits or specifics of a case without a proper POA on file. https://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0080.pdf
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
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/apply
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/maintain/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia Palasik whose telephone number 571-272-2638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, from 7:00 to 5:30.
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, Lilyana Bekic can be reached on 571-272-7425. 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.
/PATRICIA A PALASIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2918
June 14, 2025
Prosecution Insights