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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the response and election of Group I, embodiment 1, reproductions 1.1-1.7 and cancellation of Group II, embodiments 2 and 3, reproductions 2.1-3.7 filed on May 22, 2025.
Group II, embodiments 2 and 3, reproductions 2.1-3.7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2025.
In view of the fact that this application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of Group II, embodiments 2 and 3, reproductions 2.1-3.7 are directed to a design or designs nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2025, and without the right to petition such Group(s) have been cancelled.
OFFICE ACTION
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 nonenabling because of the following reasons:
a). A small solid line appears below the top circle in view 1.2, but is missing in view 1.1. Please see annotated print alphabet letter A for views 1.1 and 1.2. All reproduction views should be made clear and consistent. Correction is needed to make the views consistent.
Annotated Print A:
Views 1.1 and 1.2:
PNG
media_image1.png
366
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b). A solid rectangle is shown in view 1.1, but is missing in view 1.4. Please see annotated print alphabet letter B for views 1.1 and 1.4. All reproduction views should be made clear and consistent. Correction is needed to make the views consistent.
Annotated Print B:
Views 1.1 and 1.4:
PNG
media_image3.png
628
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
378
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
c). The two small circles in view 1.3 and the small squares on the bottom in view 1.7
appear non-enabled as the exact depth and dimensions of these shapes cannot be clearly understood. It is unclear if these shapes are flat, recessed or raised on the surface. As the exact depth and dimensions cannot be clearly understood, applicant should place these shapes (C) in broken lines. Please see annotated print alphabet letter C for views 1.3 and 1.7. Correction is needed.
It should be noted that if the squares are not squares, but intended as shade lines then the shade lines should be lightened and broken apart in view 1.7.
Annotated Print C:
Views 1.3 and 1.7:
PNG
media_image5.png
265
840
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
697
915
media_image6.png
Greyscale
d). Shading is shown between the broken and solid line rectangles on the bottom in view 1.7 except for one surface area. It is understood that the shaded surface areas between the broken and solid line rectangles indicate that the surface area is claimed. However, in the rectangle that does not show shading it is unclear if this surface is claimed or unclaimed or where the boundary line lies between the claimed and unclaimed areas. As two of the sides are solid and two of the sides are broken, the boundary between the claimed and unclaimed surface areas should be clearly defined in order to understand the claimed design. If this surface area is claimed then shading should be applied. Please see annotated print alphabet letter D for view 1.7. Clarification and correction are needed.
Annotated Print D:
View 1.7:
PNG
media_image7.png
430
878
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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)). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
Replacement Reproductions
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.
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.
It is suggested that applicant may submit large, clear formal pen and ink drawings which show the details of the design clearly, accurately, and consistently in order that the examiner may be in a position to determine if the claim may be clarified without the addition of new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). In the alternative, applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines.
Failure to submit replacement correction sheets overcoming all of the deficiencies in the drawing disclosure set forth above, or an explanation why the drawing corrections or additional drawing views are not necessary will result in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, being made FINAL in the next Office action.
Clarity, consistency and correction of the claim are required in order to obviate this rejection.
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) paragraphs.
Objection to the Specification
Descriptions of the Reproductions
The descriptions in the specification filed on May 22, 2025 that reads, “Description of the design: The design. . . part of the design.” should be deleted since it duplicates the descriptions of the views already listed above as 1.1-1.7.
Broken Line Statement
For clarity, the broken line statement should be amended as a separate statement to read:
--The broken lines in the drawings are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the locker that do not form part of the design.--
This statement should be shown preceding the claim.
Claim
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025), the claim should be amended to read: “We claim:
The ornamental design for a locker, as shown and described.”
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.
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 Elizabeth.Oswecki@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 (M-F 9-5 EST) indicated in the last paragraph of this communication.
Email Communication
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:
[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
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) paragraphs.
The claimed design is patentable over the references cited. The art of record not relied upon is cited as cumulative art.
Contact Information
For general information or administrative questions, please call 1-800-786-9199. For fee questions, please contact (571) 272-6400, for questions regarding petitions (571) 272-3282, and questions regarding publications (571) 272-4200.
To fax an official response to this action, or to fax any other formal communication you wish to be made of record in this application use 571-273-8300. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2579.
Patentability Contact:
Inquiries concerning PATENTABILITY/EXAMINATION of this application should be directed to Elizabeth Oswecki whose telephone number is 571-272-4335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 pm EST. Please note that, at this time, the examiner is prohibited from initiating or returning international telephone calls. If applicant wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be reached by email, elizabeth.oswecki@uspto.gov to arrange a time for applicant to initiate a telephone interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Wilson can be reached on 571-272-7639. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
To schedule an interview, applicant may either call by telephone or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Regarding Status of an Application:
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Unpublished application information in the 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 andhttps://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.
Inventor Assistance Center:
The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC) provides patent information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners and experienced Primary Examiners who answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure.
Applicants should contact the IAC concerning payment of FEES, schedule of PRINTING of patents, RECEIPTS, and any other administrative issues. IAC is available M-F 8:30 am-5:00pm EST at 1-800-786-9199 or 703-308-4357 or for TTY 703-305-7785 for customer assistance.
/ELIZABETH J OSWECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2926