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 .
Foreign Priority
The claim for foreign priority based on KR Patent Application No. 30-2024-0005368 filed on February 07, 2024 is acknowledged. However, it is noted that there is no corresponding certified document. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide a certified copy of the priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. Applicant is advised that certified documents as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(f) are not permitted to be filed via EFS-WEB. (See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(2)).
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 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 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
There are visual disclosures of several elements situated at the underside of the vehicle. Especially, the reproduction 1.7 shows these elements through a single orthographic projection view, that in and of itself, is an inadequate visual presentation of how these elements are shaped and formed three dimensionally. When three-dimensional objects are represented solely in a single plan view, without additional views, it becomes difficult to determine the exact three-dimensional shape. In other words, without other perspectives that illustrated depth and shape, it is challenging to fully comprehend how the object look of which, their exact shape and appearance cannot be ascertained in the absence of corroborating views to fully enable the three-dimensional appearance of said elements (e.g., one or more attribute such depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown). Even though shadows are used in the photo realistic render image to indicate depth, they do not provide enough information to determine the precise angles of various surface. Because of this limitation, the applicant should remove the indefinite and non-enabled features from the claim.
Since the images are photo realistic render image, the indefinite and non-able features cannot be converted to a broken lines. In this case, the examiner suggests de-emphasizing or ghosted the indefinite and non-enable area in every figure in which they appear, and the specification be amended to include a statement that the portions of the article shown in ghosted or in a light tonal contrast form not part of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Extreme caution should be paid when correcting the reproductions as they must not contain new matter (35 USC 132; 37 CFR 1.121).
Applicant is cautioned that if the surface shape of an element/structure is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of additional views of those elements/structures after filing may comprise new matter (37 CFR 1.152 (II)).
Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a reproduction 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion:
This application stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (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 Giang.tran1@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.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence:
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
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
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
/G.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/DARLINGTON LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2914
Prosecution Insights