DETAILED ACTION - Final Refusal
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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Acknowledgment of Applicant’s Response
The merits of the application have been carefully reconsidered in view of Applicant’s 10/13/2025 amendments. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection to the drawings, specification, and the 112 (a) and (b) refusal related to the poor image quality in the previous office action.
However, there is a drawing issue with FIG. 1.2, and the Applicant’s replacement drawings have introduced impermissible new matter into the claim, which results in a new 112 (a) refusal. Therefore, the following FINAL refusal under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) is set forth.
As applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, 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).
Examiner’s Comment
The following formal matters are noted:
Drawings:
The drawings do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84 for the following:
In FIG. 5, the overall line quality is poor. The lines are sketchy and inexact and bleed together in places into thick dark lines or dark masses. All drawings must be made by a process that will give satisfactory reproduction for patent printing. Every line, number and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction yet light enough so as to not bleed together. 37 CFR 1.84(l). Correction is required to show crisp, clean, clear lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Refusal - 35 USC § 112(a) - New Matter
The claim is FINALLY REFUSED under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the drawings introduce new matter 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 (see annotations below):
1: The change in appearance of feature “A” from a wide ledge to a narrow ledge “A” in FIG. 1.1.
2: The change in the appearance of feature “B” from two semi-circles to one semi-circle in FIG. 1.1.
3: The change in appearance of feature “C” from no ring to a ring in FIG. 1.1.
PNG
media_image2.png
588
1071
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4: The change in appearance of feature “D” “E” “J” “K” from no solid line to solid line in FIG. 1.2.
5: The change in the appearance of feature “F” “G” “H” “I” from recesses to flat planes in FIG. 1.2.
PNG
media_image3.png
748
1147
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that they were in possession of the of the amended subject matter or amend these areas to be consistent with the original disclosure.
Replacement Reproductions
Any amended replacement drawing reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions 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 reproductions. If all the figures on a drawing reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each drawing reproduction 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 or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Notes on Correspondence
Reply Reminder
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).
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 Emily.Saunders@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.
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:
[Symbol font/0xB7] Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
[Symbol font/0xB7] Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450
[Symbol font/0xB7] Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300)
[Symbol font/0xB7] Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion and Contact Information
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and MADE FINAL.
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). 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 EMILY A SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6356. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8AM-6PM PST.
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, George Ulsh can be reached on (571) 270-1433. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2925 /GEORGE J ULSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2925
Prosecution Insights