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 .
Response to Restriction - Election without Traverse Due to Incomplete Reply
Applicant’s election of I in the reply filed September 4, 2025 is acknowledged. Because the 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 § 818.01(a)). Claim to group II withdrawn from further consideration by the applicant as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) & (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
The depths of features A, shaded below, are unclear. The features are shown only in Fig. 1.1. The features appear to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the features could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 1.3, below. Therefore, the exact locations of the features are open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
365
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.1
PNG
media_image2.png
332
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.3
The depth of feature B is unclear. The feature is shown only in Fig. 1.2. The feature appears to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the feature could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 1.3, below. Therefore, the exact location of the feature is open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.2
PNG
media_image4.png
452
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.3
The depths of features C, shaded below, are unclear. The features are shown only in Fig. 1.6. The features appear to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the features could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 1.3, below. Therefore, the exact locations of the features are open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image5.png
693
866
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.6
PNG
media_image6.png
252
697
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.3
The depths of features D, shaded below, are unclear. The features are shown only in Fig. 2.1. The features appear to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the features could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 2.3, below. Therefore, the exact locations of the features are open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image7.png
193
273
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.1
PNG
media_image8.png
267
535
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.3
The depth of feature E is unclear. The feature is shown only in Fig. 2.2. The feature appears to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the feature could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 2.3, below. Therefore, the exact location of the feature is open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image9.png
382
299
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.2
PNG
media_image10.png
413
555
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.3
The depths of features F are unclear. The features are shown only in Fig. 2.6. The features appear to be located somewhere within the body of the design. However, the features could exist anywhere within the range indicated on annotated Fig. 2.3, below. Therefore, the exact locations of the features are open to conjecture due to lack of additional disclosure.
PNG
media_image11.png
721
882
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.6
PNG
media_image12.png
290
700
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2.3
Because of the inadequate 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. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. However, if certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, the applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and non-enabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
The claim stands refused for the reasons set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR MORTORFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:00.
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, Rich Edgar can be reached at (571)272-4816. 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.
/T.O.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2931
/KHAWAJA ANWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912
Prosecution Insights