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
This application has been carefully examined and is REJECTED for the reasons set forth below.
Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s response filed on 05/21/2025 that traversed the restriction requirement is acknowledged. The response to the restriction requirement has overcome the restriction requirement originally issued on 05/05/2025. Specifically, the applicant states that the difference from embodiment 1 and embodiment 2 is that in embodiment 1 the light is turned off, while in embodiment 2 the light is turned on. The original restriction requirement is now withdrawn.
Multiple Embodiments
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - FIGS. 1.1-1.7 Video Projector with the light off
Embodiment 2 - FIGS. 2.1-2.7 Video Projector with the light on
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Any rejection of one embodiment over prior art will apply equally to all other embodiments. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments.
Objections to the Drawings
Size of Paper/Margins
The drawing disclosure does not meet the requirements of Hague Administrative Instructions Section 401.
Presentation of Reproductions
(a) One and the same international application may comprise both photographs and other graphic representations, in black and white or in color.
(b) Each reproduction accompanying an international application shall be submitted in a single copy.
(c) The photographs or other graphic representations accompanying an international application filed on paper shall be either pasted or printed directly onto a separate sheet of A4 paper which is white and opaque. The separate sheet of paper shall be used upright and shall not contain more than 25 reproductions.
(d) The reproductions accompanying an international application must be arranged in the orientation in which the applicant wishes them to be published. Where that application is filed on paper, a margin of at least 5 millimeters should be left around the representation of each industrial design.
(e) Each reproduction must fall within a right-angled quadrilateral containing no other reproduction or part of another reproduction and no numbering. The photographs or other graphic representations shall not be folded, stapled or marked in any way.
The paper sizes vary throughout ALL figures and are not at the required size of A4. Additionally, the lack of margins shows portions of the figure numbers starting to get cut-off. This issues is seen throughout ALL figures 1.1-1.7. It Is recommended the applicant updates the paper size to be size A4 with 5cm margins around the claimed design and figure numbers so that no portion is cut-off and meet the requirements as described above. See annotated drawing(s) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
989
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is 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 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reason(s):
The Applicant is reminded when addressing the areas of concern below, that the applicant addresses ALL figures throughout without adding any new matter.
Lines are Rough and Jagged Causing Inconsistencies
The reproductions appear rough and jagged throughout the copper pipe features seen in figures 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.5, while in the rest of the views these features are shown smooth, thus making this area inconsistently shown. Due to the jagged nature of the reproductions, the exact contour and details of the claim are starting to become unclear. It is recommended the applicant amends ALL figures to show ALL lines durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. See annotated drawing(s) below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1840
1131
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Full Scope Unknown
The clear-like structuring seen throughout the interior portion of the claim in figures 1.1-1.7 and 2.1-2.7 are causing confusion and making the scope of the claim unclear and unknown. Specifically, the clear-like structuring is visible in some areas and appears to disappear in other areas. The true structure of the clear-like portion of the claim cannot be determined when taking all views into consideration.
It appears that the clear-like structure is causing distortion with the other features of the claim. Specifically in 1.1/2.1 at the bottom middle portion of the claim there appears to be a clear-like feature in front of a strip that is distorted, while in 1.2/2.2 there appears to be no clear-like feature and the strip is not distorted. In 1.4/2.4 there are two features on the copper feature that appear to also be getting distorted by a possible clear-like feature.
Due to the inconsistencies because of the clear-like structure seen throughout, the exact scope of the claim cannot be determined and understood. The applicant is reminded that the clear-like structure is shown throughout ALL figures 1.1-1.7 and 2.1-2.7, and that the figures used below are used as an example of the areas of concern. The issues are not just limited to these figures below.
See annotated drawing(s) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
1490
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1300
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1776
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
657
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Unknown Depths
There are multiple areas throughout the claim design where the examiner cannot determine the exact depth and/or shape of the features due to a lack of views of the areas and some of the areas appearing solid black. The examiner cannot determine the exact intentions of the feature(s) pointed out below. These areas leave the claim open to numerous interpretations, thus the true appearance of the claim unknown.
Specifically, in 1.2 and 2.2 there are solid black areas that are shown that have a depth and exact shape that are unknown and cannot be determined. These features appear as black rectangular like shapes and a hidden circle-like shape. Additionally, in the top views of 1.6/2.6 there are 5 circle like features and a detail within the center most portion that have a depths that are unknown an cannot be determined. In the bottom views of 1.7/2.7, there are features only seen in this view that have an exact depth that is unknown and cannot be determined, these features are pointed out below. The applicant is reminded to address all figures where these features are seen throughout the reproductions and the figures used below are used to show the areas of concern.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant may exclude the portions / elements / features that are considered non-enabled and indefinite by converting them to broken lines, thus removing them from the claim. The applicant is reminded to make sure when converting to broken lines, the applicant addresses ALL views where these features are present. It is not recommended that the applicant adds shading or additional views of the areas of concern, because this would add new matter.
The applicant is also reminded that use of broken lines will necessitate in the addition of a feature statement (in the form of a broken line statement) in the specification. For these broken lines, it is suggested the applicant uses the term “portions of” to describe the broken draft lines. The following broken line statement is recommended:
--The broken lines in the figures depict portions of the Video Projector and forms no part of the claimed design.--
See annotated drawing(s) below:
PNG
media_image7.png
743
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1351
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the overall shape, appearance and configuration of the invention cannot be understood. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Such ambiguities in the disclosure fail to enable a designer of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the shape and appearance of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture.
Since the drawing disclosure constitutes the entire visual disclosure of the claim, it is imperative that the drawings be clear and complete, and that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. See MPEP § 1503.02.
Any amendment to the claim must meet the written disclosure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. The applicant is reminded to be sure not to add new matter to the amended drawings. See 35 USC § 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter.
New Drawing Submission
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.”
Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Any change to the drawing or specification must have support from the original disclosure. The amended drawings must not contain new matter. (See 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121) Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If applicants’ response to the requirements set forth above is incomplete or includes new matter, the examiner may hold the response non-compliant. 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. The examiner recommends using a lossless file format when submitting drawings through EFS-web (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). EFS-web PDF Guidelines may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines.
Reply Reminder to all Refusals
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).
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.
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
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) and (b) for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the subject matter of the claimed design.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loryn K LeBlanc whose telephone number is (571)272-9160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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 Primary Examiner, Ian Simmons can be reached on (571) 272-2658. The Examiner’s Supervisor, Dana Weiland can be reached on (571) 270-0253. 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.
/LORYN K. LEBLANC/Examiner, Art Unit 2914
/IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2912