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 of Applicant’s Response
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response filed 09/11/2025. The objection to the specification has been overcome by applicant's amendment and is hereby withdrawn.
However, applicant’s response to the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) has been fully considered but is not considered sufficient to overcome the rejection of record and is hereby restated and made FINAL. Specifically, Item #1 under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) has not be overcome by applicant's amendment and remarks.
Additionally, the amendment includes information that forms the basis for new objections to the claim, as set forth below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Drawing Objection
All the reproductions are objected to because it is improper to have the abbreviation ‘FIG.” before the view numbers in international design applications. See Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405 (a). Therefore, the abbreviation ‘FIG.” must be removed from the view numbers for all the views.
Specification Objection
The descriptions of all the reproductions are objected to because it is improper to describe the views as “FIG. 1.X” in international design applications. Therefore, for proper form, the descriptions of all the reproductions should be amended to read:
-- 1.1 is a perspective view of a 3D-interlocking puzzle;
1.2 is another perspective view thereof shown in an open state;
1.3 is a perspective view with each component shown separately for clarity
and ease of illustration;
1.4 is a front elevational view thereof;
1.5 is a back elevational view thereof;
1.6 is a left elevational view thereof;
1.7 is a right elevational view thereof;
1.8 is a top plan view thereof; and
1.9 is a bottom plan view thereof. --
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) FINAL
The claim is FINALLY 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 the precise appearance of the claimed design cannot be determined for the following reasons:
The overall appearance of Component “J” in 1.1-1.9 is uncertain. Specifically,
Component “J” shown in 1.4-1.9 has a different appearance than it is shown in 1.1-1.3. 1.4-1.9 show Component “J” to have a more cubic shape, yet 1.1-1.3 show Component “J” to have a more rectangular shape.
Per Applicant’s Remarks of 09/11/2025, 1.3 shows a top perspective view, in which all the outer corners of the claimed design are rounded with larger radius and all the inner corners are also rounded with smaller radius, yet 1.8 (top plan view) and 1.9 (bottom plan view) show sharp corners at the outer corners and the inner corners as identified in the following 1.8 and 1.9.
PNG
media_image1.png
1066
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, based on 1.3 is a top perspective view, the Examiner identified the front view, the back view, the left side view, and the right side view in the following 1.1 and 1.3.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
1184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on this understanding, it is unclear where all the sharp corners shown in 1.4-1.7 located in 1.1-1.3, or, how all these sharp corners shown in 1.4-1.7 related to what are shown in 1.1-1.3. Refer to the following diagram.
PNG
media_image3.png
1047
884
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1.3 shows Line Element “a” of the outer border in a broken line as identified by an arrow in the following diagram, yet it is not shown in 1.4-1.9, and it is unclear where Line Element “a” is located in 1.4-1.9. Additionally, it appears Line Element “a” in 1.1-1.2 is shown in a solid line.
1.3 shows the portion between Line Element “a” and the inner edge Line Element “b” with contour lines in light gray color, which indicates the portion with a smooth surface without any sharp surface transitions. Yet 1.4-1.9 show the portion with some broken line elements (identified by the arrows in the following diagram) which indicate some sharp surface transitions, additionally, none of these broken line elements are not shown in 1.3.
It is unclear where Line Elements “c”, “d” and “e” (in broken lines) in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 are located in 1.1-1.3.
PNG
media_image4.png
1716
1498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistent and unclear visual disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
Applicant may be able to overcome the rejection by submission of replacement drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling from the claim by converting them to broken lines and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design, 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 the original filing, or applicant must provide evidence of that possession. I
Applicant is advised that to overcome this rejection, no new matter may be introduced that was not shown in the original disclosure, either through the addition or removal of features to the claimed design. Applicant is reminded that the original drawing disclosure represents the claimed design. New matter is anything (structure, features, elements) which was not apparent (seen) in the drawings as originally filed. It is possible that adding new views may also introduce new matter.
Response to Arguments –
Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in the previous action, should be overcome because of the reasons above and below.
The Applicant states:
“the overall appearance of this component should be clear at least based on the seven standard views of Figs. 1.3 to 1.9. Figs. 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate additional views of this component assembled with some or all of the other components of the claimed design, which causes only a portion of this component to be visible, but does not call into question the overall appearance of this component visible in the other views that are separated from the other components. Applicant further submits that Fig. 1.3 illustrates a top perspective view of the various components. In other words, from the perspective shown in Fig. 1.3, Component "L" can be placed on top of Component "J" to arrive at the arrangement of these components shown in Figs. 1.1 and 1.2.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because as stated in the above 112 rejection, It is unclear how the overall appearance of Component “J” could be clear just based on the seven standard views of 1.3 to 1.9, since 1.1-1.3 show the claimed design very differently than what is shown in 1.4-1.9:
1.4-1.9 show Component “J” to have a more cubic shape, yet 1.1-1.3 show Component “J” to have a more rectangular shape.
There are multiple consistencies shown between 1.1-1.3 and 1.4-1.9 as stated in the above 112 rejection Item #2-5.
The Applicant further states:
“The Office further alleges that there are inconsistencies in the appearance of Component "J" in Figs. 1.4 to 1.9 compared to Fig. 1.3. In the replacement drawing sheets submitted herewith, Figs. 1.4 to 1.9 are amended for clarity, with alleged inconsistent features of this component being disclaimed using broken lines.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because as stated in the above 112 rejection, although these line elements have been converted to broken lines in 1.4-1.9, yet they are not shown in 1.1-1.3 at all. It is unclear where these broken lines are located in 1.1-1.3.
For the reasons given above, the examiner maintains that the rejection given under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) is proper.
Applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) how the design shown in 1.4-1.9 is the design shown in 1.1 -1.3.
Conclusion
The claimed design is finally rejected as set forth above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUAN YUAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-9875. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Supervisory Examiner Ian Simmons, can be reached on (571)272-2658, or, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Jonaitis can be reached on (571)270-5033. 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.
/Y.Y/Examiner, Art Unit 2921
/IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2912
Prosecution Insights