DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Embodiment 1, Reproductions 1.1 - 1.7) in the reply filed on 07/28/2025 is acknowledged. The cancellation of non-elected Groups II to XV (Embodiments 2-17, Reproductions 2.1 – 17.7) is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawing disclosure is objected to for the following inconsistencies:
Quality of Lines: The reproductions show lines that appear jagged and have a gray halftone haze surrounding the lines (see example in reproduction. 1.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
1338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
The reproductions appear stretched and don’t represent the elements in a uniform manner. Elements common in the art such as screws and nuts look distorted and not consistent. (see example reproduction 1.4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
648
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4
Further, the reproductions show what appears to be spots/markings. Accordingly, the sheet of paper that the drawing appears on is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 (e). Drawings submitted to the Office must be made on paper which is white, durable and free from cracks, creases, folds, erasures and other markings that might interfere with the claimed design including spots and specks from the faxing or scanning process. Corrected figures are required that are free from spots, clean and white (see example in reproduction 1.1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
816
1428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
These conditions will worsen when the drawings are reproduced for the printed patent. 37 CFR 1.84(l) states that “[e]very line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.” The line quality must be made to meet the appropriate standards.
The blurred, stretched and non-uniform conditions appear to be present throughout the figures. Careful evaluation of the figures is required to ensure that the line quality meets the appropriate standards.
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
A new, formal, and mutually consistent drawing with sharp and well-defined lines, wherein the noted objections have been corrected, is now required.
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).
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.
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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
Reproductions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 show elements, (shaded in gray and noted with arrows in reproductions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 below) that are not enabled because of lack of description in the figures. The appearance and exact shape of said elements cannot be ascertained in the absence of corroborating views to fully describe the three-dimensional appearance of said elements (e.g. one or more attributes such depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown). This makes it impossible to understand the claimed design without resorting to conjecture.
PNG
media_image4.png
934
1096
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2
PNG
media_image5.png
800
1362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3
PNG
media_image6.png
836
1186
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.4
PNG
media_image7.png
588
1176
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.5
PNG
media_image8.png
834
1184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6
It is therefore suggested that said elements in reproductions 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 be converted to broken lines and a statement describing the purpose of the broken lines be added to the specification. A sample broken line statement is below:
--The broken lines depict portions of the Centrifugal Pump that form no part of the claimed design.--
New drawings are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views. In any attempt to prepare new drawings in an effort to overcome the rejection, 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.
In any attempt to prepare new drawings in an effort to overcome the rejection, 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.
Corrected drawing sheets 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.
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (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 Eidiol.ghigliotty@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)
/EIDIOL GHIGLIOTTY TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2915
Prosecution Insights