The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's election of Group II in response dated 09-24-2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Groups I and III-VI are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
There are two views shown in each of the embodiment in the present application. Therefore, as the decision of In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980), holds that an ornamental design may be embodied in less than a complete article, it is understood that the surface(s) or portion(s) of the article that would normally be visible but which are not shown in the drawing or described in the specification of the present application form(s) no part of the claimed design. Therefore, the determination of patentability of the claimed design is based on the views of the article shown in the drawing and the description in the specification.
Drawings
For clarity of record, the restriction requirement set forth in the previous office action grouped reproduction 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 as part of Group II, however, applicant has requested the withdrawal of reproduction 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 from Group II. As such, because of the above election, reproductions 1.1 - 1.2 and 3.1-10.2 should cancelled as being for non-elected invention.
For accuracy, reproductions 2.1-2.2 should be renumbered as 1.1 - 1.2.
Specification
Because of the above election, figure descriptions 1.1 - 1.2 and 3.1-10.2 should cancelled as being for non-elected invention and figure descriptions 2.1 - 2.2 should be renumbered as 1.1 and 1.2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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/or for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, the claim is non-enabling because the scope of the claimed design is not clear due to the broken lines shown along the perimeter of all surfaces. It is not clear if the broken lines are intended to depict contour lines or they are intended to define the bounds of the claimed design (see reproduction 2.2 below). In addition, it is not clear what features “A” or “B” are intended to depict. Therefore, the claim is not enabled because the appearance of the scope of the claim is neither clear no concise nor exact enough to support the claim asserted.
The claim is also therefore indefinite because the appearance of portions of the design as seen from the front cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture. Since the scope of the claim includes design features having an uncertain appearance, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and not yet defined.
This rejection may be overcome by amending the drawing and description as follows:
If the broken lines are intended to depict contour lines, then the consistent, even spaced broken lines should be replaced with lines having long strokes with few numbers as possible.
If the broken lines are intended to depict the boundary of the claimed design than the reproductions should be amended to clearly define the scope of the claimed design. The specification should be amended to include a statement that the portions of the remote control shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design or a statement that the portions of the remote control shown by coloring form no part of the claimed design (see MPEP 2920.04 (a) II).
Matter excluded from the claim: Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403:
Matter which is shown in a reproduction but for which protection is not sought maybe indicated:
(i) in the description referred to in Rule 7(5)(a) and/or
(ii) by means of dotted or broken lines or coloring.
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Replacement Reproductions
Corrected drawing sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet of the reproductions should include all of the views appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one view is being amended. The view number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing view is to be canceled, the appropriate view must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining views 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 views. Each drawing sheet of reproductions 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).
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) 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.
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 when preparing new reproductions.
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The references cited, but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
Hague - Reply Reminder
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).
Notes on Correspondence
If applicant wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be reached by email to arrange a time for a telephone interview: selina.sikder@uspto.gov. The merits of the application may not be discussed via email unless an appropriate authorization for email communication is placed in the U.S. application file at the USPTO. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please see MPEP 502.03 I (Article 5) for more details.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case
A Power of Attorney (POA), filed with the USPTO in the specific case, is required whether or not attorney for the applicant has POA authority in a foreign IP office. Examiner may not discuss the merits or specifics of a case without a proper POA on file.
https://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0080.pdf
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Ex Parte Quayle, 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
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding- office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in Public PAIR, which may be viewed by the applicant at:
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selina Sikder whose telephone number is 571-272-2627. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sandra Snapp, can be reached on 571-272-2658. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/SELINA SIKDER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912