OFFICE ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement of Election
Acknowledgement is here made of Applicant’s election of Group I (1.1 through 1.4), without traverse, in the reply filed 7/5/2025. Group I through IX is hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being the non-elected group for examination.
Objection to the Specification
Non-Elected Descriptions
In view of the aforementioned election, the figure descriptions for 2 through 9 must be canceled from the Specification.
Descriptions
The descriptions are objectionable because each reproduction is not described. Descriptions are not required to be written in any particular format, however, if they do not describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately, the examiner should object to the unclear and/or inaccurate descriptions and suggest language which provides a clear and accurate description of the views. Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)(II). The following language and format is suggested:
-- 1.1 is a top perspective view of a Riding Saddle.
1.2 is a bottom perspective view thereof;
1.3 is another bottom perspective view thereof, but shown with cover flaps; and
1.4 is another top perspective view thereof. --
Objection to the Reproductions
Non-Elected Figures
In view of the aforementioned election, the drawings for 2.1 through 9.8 must be canceled.
Margins
The reproductions are objectionable because the margins are not shown properly. Per Hague Administrative Instructions Section 401(d), a margin of at least 5 millimeters should be left around the representation of each industrial design.
Claim Rejections - 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 non-enabling because the exact and complete appearance of the design cannot be determined because of the following:
Spatially Unclear Surfaces/Line Details
Reproduction 1.2 shows bottom portions of the design that cannot be understood because the appearance of the bottom surfaces cannot be corroborated with other views. It is not possible to determine which plane the solid lines occur on in relationship to the surrounding planes from the single plan view, and the appearance cannot be reconciled with any other view as the features are not shown except in 1.2. Therefore, the three dimensional appearance of the bottom portions cannot be understood. See the areas highlighted with gray shading in the diagram which are the non-enabled areas.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the Applicant amend the drawings to remove the non-enabled features from the claimed design by converting (not removing) the solid lines into lightweight broken lines, and by removing the surface shading from within the non-enabled areas. Surface shading may not be applied to subject matter forming no part of the claim. See MPEP 1503.02, (III).
It is noted that if the amendments are made to remove the non-enabled areas from the claimed design, then a broken line description must be added to the specification, immediately preceding the claim, in order to describe the broken lines (MPEP 1503.02(III)). The Examiner suggests the following broken line description:
-- The broken lines illustrate portions of the Ridding Saddle that form no part of the claimed design. --
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b), as set forth above.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katrina Gonzalez whose telephone number is (408) 918-7600. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8am until 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Stout can be reached on (408) 918-7558. 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.
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.
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: [examiner email] 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.
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 Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
/KATRINA N GONZALEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924