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 on Terminal Disclaimer
The Examiner acknowledges that Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on 11/07/2025; For clarity, the filing of the terminal disclaimer is understood as being preemptive since no double patenting refusal was presented in the non-final rejection dated 06/13/2025. However, a statutory double patenting refusal is being presented in this office action. While a terminal disclaimer has been filed and accepted on 11/13/2025, per MPEP § 804.02 a Terminal Disclaimer cannot overcome a “same invention” type double patenting refusal. See discussion below.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant's Response of 09/12/2025 and Supplemental Responses of 10/10/2025 and 11/07/2025. The merits of the application have been carefully reconsidered in view of Applicant’s Remarks, Amendment and replacement reproductions. A new ground of rejection has been presented below. This action is being made non-final in order to afford applicant the opportunity to respond to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s Response dated 9/12/25:
Specification
Applicant has chosen to amend the figure descriptions as recommended. The amendment to the specification has been acknowledged.
Claim Refusal – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)Applicant wishes to traverse the rejection regarding “an indeterminate length”. This traversal is moot in light of the amendment to the specification filed on 09/12/2025. Furthermore, Applicant wishes to traverse the rejection regarding the inconsistent broken line usage in the reproductions. This traversal is moot in light of the replacement reproductions filed on 11/07/2025. The amendments effectively overcome the refusal of record, which is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s Supplemental Response dated 10/10/25:
Replacement Reproductions
Applicant has removed the impermissible shading on the broken line portions in Reproductions 1.5 and 1.6 of the replacement reproductions filed on 11/07/2025.
Applicant’s Supplemental Response dated 11/07/25:
Replacement Reproductions
In an attempt to avoid a double patenting refusal, Applicant filed replacement reproductions wherein a portion of the support arm of the lamp has been converted to solid lines. A statutory double patenting refusal is being presented in this Office action.
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. 171 Double Patenting
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design as that claimed in United States Design Patent No. D1,086,537. Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a "same invention" type double patenting rejection. In re Thor-ington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
857
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
766
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the amendment to the drawings is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure 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).
Applicant's amendment filed on 11/07/2025 introduces prohibited new matter. Refer to the following amended Reproductions 1.1 filed on 09/12/2025 and 11/07/2025. There is no support in the original disclosure for the following amendment:
PNG
media_image3.png
972
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant has converted a small portion of the support arm feature to solid lines in replacement Reproduction 1.1. However, there is no antecedent basis for converting only an arbitrary portion of this feature to solid lines. Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter. Any broken line boundary other than a straight broken line may constitute new matter, prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) (see MPEP 1503.02(III) and 1504.04). Therefore, the amendment introduces new matter.
To overcome this refusal and the claim refusal under 35 U.S.C. 171, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that they were in possession of the amended claim, or applicant may overcome the refusal by converting the entire support arm to solid lines per MPEP 1503.02(III) and 1504.04, provided such amendments do not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). See feature shaded in grey in the proposed guidance below.
PNG
media_image4.png
614
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The claimed design stands refused under 35 U.S.C. § 171 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as set forth above.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
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.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case
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”, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 melissa.santos@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 an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayles, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. 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)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9826. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Lakiya Rogers, can be reached on (571) 270-7145. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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.
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.
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).
/M.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2934
/LAKIYA G ROGERS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2934