NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL
The response filed on 03/02/2026 has been fully considered. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objectionable matters described in the nonfinal rejection dated 09/29/2025. Some of arguments are considered to be persuasive. Specifically, some of the areas shaded in the refusals on page 4-5 and the refusal presented on page 7 have been overcome based on the presented arguments.
However, the claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claim is not clearly or consistently disclosed. Therefore, the refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) is made final. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of the objection and refusals presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a)
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is FINALLY refused 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claim is not consistently or clearly disclosed.
Specifically:
The disclosure provided is of insufficient quality to assure that all details in the reproductions are reproducible in the printed patent. Specially, the thickness of the lines in the reproductions are inconsistent and not uniformly thick and well defined and clean. The following image is for example purposes only, all reproductions should be addressed.
PNG
media_image1.png
713
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration the following elements cannot be understood without resorting to conjecture:
The surfaces and elements pointed out below in 1.7. Without resort to conjecture, one cannot determine if this element is intended to be a hole, indentation, surface indicia or something else.
PNG
media_image2.png
950
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
o The surfaces and elements pointed out below in 1.3. Specifically, based on the illustration provided, a single planar view, the elements three dimensionality cannot be determined. The single view of this feature does not clearly distinguish between planar surfaces nor does it explain the depth that may be between the surfaces. It is impossible to understand the transitions, if any, between the various surfaces that are shown and to confirm the exact appearance.
PNG
media_image3.png
968
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The surfaces and elements pointed out below in 1.6. The surfaces and elements pointed out below in 1.3. Specifically, based on the illustration provided, a single planar view, the elements three dimensionality cannot be determined. The single view of this feature does not clearly distinguish between planar surfaces nor does it explain the depth that may be between the surfaces. It is impossible to understand the transitions, if any, between the various surfaces that are shown and to confirm the exact appearance.
PNG
media_image4.png
808
355
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for the indefinite elements by amending the reproductions to convert the indefinite elements to broken lines, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403.
Due to the following inconsistencies, the disclosure does not provide for certainty as to the exact appearance of the elements annotated below without resorting to conjecture:
Specifically:
The lines annotated below are shown inconsistently between 1.1 and 1.7. See annotation below:
PNG
media_image5.png
942
1772
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The lines annotated below are shown inconsistently between 1.4 and 1.8. See annotation below:
PNG
media_image6.png
1020
1774
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This portion of the refusal may be overcome by amending the reproductions for consistency.
Replacement Sheets
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 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 renumbered 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 as new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case:
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”, may be used for this purpose:https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 kayla.bennett@uspto.gov 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.
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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-9590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-3:00 PM 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, Supervisor, Justin Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. 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.
/K.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2924
/JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights