DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because it does not accurately describe the figures. The drawings are shown in alternate configurations but are not described as such. An international design application designating the United States must include a specification as prescribed by 35 USC 112 and preferably include a brief description of the reproduction pursuant to Rule 7(5)(a) describing the view or views of the reproductions. (37 CFR 1.1024).
See MPEP 2920.04(a)(II) for more information on descriptions in the specifications. For properform and further clarity, applicant should amend figure descriptions to read as follows:
--1.1 – Fully folded top perspective
1.2 - Front
1.3 - Back
1.4 - Right
1.5 - Left
1.6 – Top
1.7 – Bottom
1.8 – Partially folded top perspective
1.9 – Front
1.10 – Back
1.11 – Right
1.12 – Left
1.13 – Top
1.14 – Bottom
1.15 – Expanded top perspective
1.16 – Front
1.17 – Back
1.18 – Right
1.19 – Left
1.20 – Top
1.21 – Bottom--
35 USC 112(a) and (b) Refusal
The claim is refused under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described insuch full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make anduse the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter whichapplicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following:
The handle is shown inconsistently throughout the drawings. There are extra lines shown in 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5 that are not shown in comparing views 1.2, 1,6 and 1.9. There is an incomplete line on the right of the handle in 1.2 and 1.9. The handle must be shown consistent throughout.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
1501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are interior portions and configurations from top view 1.6 that cannot be understood from limited views. There is not enough information to understand the placement and dimensionality of the shapes highlighted in grey below.
PNG
media_image2.png
337
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There are 2 vertical lines shown inside the opening in views 1,2, 1.3, 1.9, 1.10. These shapes do not correspond when comparing with other views. It’s unclear what these lines indicate.
PNG
media_image3.png
389
929
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The rear surface of the tab placed inside the wheels in views 1.3, 1.10, and 1.17 are non-enabled as we do not see these shapes in other views. It’s unclear if the rectangular shapes are flush on the surface or if there is dimensionality.
PNG
media_image4.png
233
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
There is a triangular shape with small marking on the edges in view 1.7 that is non-enabled. Is this shape solid and flush or is it an opening? What do the markings indicate?
PNG
media_image5.png
206
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The honeycomb patten shown in views 1.3, 1.10, and 1.17 is non-enabled. This complex configuration is only shown in a flat plan view, limiting our understanding of the dimensionality, placement, and configuration of this pattern. Further all the shapes and lines within the rectangular openings on both sides of the back cannot be understood from a single plan view.
PNG
media_image6.png
831
958
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The top and bottom partially folded views 1.13 and 1.14 show many small shapes and elements that are not visible from other views. The placement, configuration, and dimensionality of the shapes highlighted in grey below are non-enabled.
PNG
media_image7.png
872
1909
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The top and bottom fully expanded views 1.20 and 1.21 show many small complex shapes along the perimeter that are not visible from other views. Further, 1.20 shows a large surface that is not shown in other views, it’s unclear where within the claim this solid surface is placed. 1.21 shows a large honeycomb pattern. Does this have dimensionality or is it flush? The placement, configuration, and dimensionality of the shapes and surfaces highlighted in grey below are non-enabled.
PNG
media_image8.png
1040
1832
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In attempt to overcome the rejection, applicant could create consistency within the handle portion of the claim. Applicant could also reduce all non-enabled portions to broken line. If the design cannot be fully enabled without introducing new matter because certain portions are indefinite, applicant may be able to exclude those portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, so long as the amendment meets the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing, or applicant must provide evidence of that possession.
If reducing to broken line a statement should be added to the specification stating the relationship of the broken lines to the claim. Based on the disclosure the following statement is suggested.
--The broken lines shown in the drawings depict portions of the Collapsible Cart that form no part of the claimed design.--
Replacement Drawings
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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not
required. A marked-up copy of the drawing 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 drawings. 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 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. New matter is anything (structure, features,
elements) which was not apparent (seen) in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible for
new matter to consist of the removal as well as the addition of structure, features or elements.
Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the
Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a), consisting of two separate figures separated
by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and
so on). (See 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02.) Thus the numbering convention used in the
original submission should not be amended when responding to this Office action.
Conclusion
The claimed design is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as set forth above.
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).
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.
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.
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
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA HAHN whose telephone number is (571)272-9648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 8am-4pm.
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 Bugg can be reached on 571-272-2998. 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.
/TAMARA L HAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2911