DETAILED ACTION 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. Election/Restriction: Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment I ( Reproductions 1.1-1.7 , 3 .1- 3 .7 , 6.1-6.7, 8.1-8.7 ) in the reply filed on 0 8 / 29 /2025 is acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of the non-elected embodiment s I I , IV, V and V II ( Reproductions 2.1-2.7, 4.1-4.7, 5.1-5.7 and 7.1-7.7 ) , and corresponding descriptions in the specification. Objection to the Specification Description of reproductions : While description of the reproductions are not required t o b e written in any particular format, Examiner suggests amending the specification as f o llows in order to clearly describe the views: --Design No./Product(s): 1 , 3, 6, and 8 Head for liquid Pump Description of the Reproduction(s): 1.1 : Perspective 1.2 : Back 1.3 : Left 1.4 : Top 1.5 : Right 1.6 : Bottom 1.7 : Front 3 .1 : Perspective 3 .2 : Back 3 .3 : Left 3 .4 : Top 3 .5 : Right 3 .6 : Bottom 3.7: Front 6 .1 : Perspective 6 .2 : Back 6 .3 : Left 6 .4 : Top 6 .5 : Right 6 .6 : Bottom 6 .7 : Front 8 .1 : Perspective 8 .2 : Back 8 .3 : Left 8 .4 : Top 8 .5 : Right 8 .6 : Bottom 8 .7 : Front— Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for appli cations subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons: Reproductions 1. 2 , 1. 3 , 1 . 5, 1.6, 3.5, 3.6, 6.5, 6.6, 8.5 and 8 .6 show elements , (shaded in gray and noted with arrows below) that are not enabled because of lack of description in the reproductions. The appearance and exact shape of said elements cannot be ascertained in the absence of corroborating views to fully describe the three-dimensional appearance of said element s (e.g. one or more attributes such depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown) . This makes it impossible to understand the claimed design without resorting to conjecture . Reproduction 1 .2 Reproduction 1 .3 Reproduction 1.5 Reproduction 1.6 Reproduction 1.6 Reproduction 3.5 Reproduction 3.6 Reproduction 6.5 Reproduction 6.6 Reproduction 8.5 Reproduction 8.6 It is therefore suggested that said elements in reproductions 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 3.5, 3.6, 6.5, 6.6, 8.5 and 8.6 be converted to broken lines and a statement describing the purpose of the broken lines be added to the specification. A sample broken line statement is below: --The broken lines depict portions of the Head for Liquid Pump that form no part of the claimed design. -- New drawings are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the drawing views. In any attempt to prepare new drawings in an effort to overcome the rejection, 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. In any attempt to prepare new drawings in an effort to overcome the rejection, 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. Corrected drawing sheets 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “ PuraLev 200SU (Single-Use) ” from Levitronix (hereinafter PuraLev 200SU ) because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The appearance of PuraLev 200SU is substantially the same as that of the claimed design shown in reproductions 6.1-6.7 (see reproduction 6.1 below). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. , 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02. Claimed Design PuraLev 200SU The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “ PuraLev® 600SU (Single-Use) ” from Levitronix (hereinafter PuraLev® 600SU ) because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The appearance of PuraLev® 600SU is substantially the same as that of the claimed design shown in reproductions 8.1-8.7 (see reproduction 8.1 below). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. , 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02. Claimed Design PuraLev 6 00SU Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F3d.1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as “minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,” so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation. Int'l Seaway supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d at 1444). Under this standard, the appearance of the PuraLev 200SU and the PuraLev 6 00SU is substantially the same as that of the claimed design shown in reproductions 6.1-6.7 and 8.1-8.7, respectively . Furthermore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 09/25/2023 ; the prior availability date of the PuraLev 200SU and the PuraLev 6 00SU reference is 11/28/2021 and , respectively (accessed via Internet Archive , Wayback Machine) . Accordingly, the rejection under this statute is proper. Overcoming Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1): The applicant may attempt to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by: 1. Persuasively arguing that the claim is patentably distinct over the prior art, or 2. Amending the claim to patentably distinguish over the prior art, or 3. Perfecting a benefit claim under 35 USC 119 or 35 USC 120, or 4. Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130. The applicant is reminded of the one-year grace period afforded under 35 USC 102(b)(1) for disclosures with a prior public availability date. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The claim design shown in Reproductions 1.1-1.7 and 3.1-3.7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “ PuraLev® i30SU (Single-Use)” from Levitronix (hereinafter PuraLev® i30SU ) in view of “ PuraLev® 600SU (Single Use)”, also from Levitronix (hereinafter PuraLev® 600SU ). Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable. In a proper rejection of a design claim under 35 USC 103, there must be a reference (the basic design), a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design in order to support a holding of obviousness. In other words, the basic reference design must look something like the claimed design. In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982). Once such a design has been established, features thereof may reasonably be interchanged with or added from those in other pertinent references to achieve the claimed design. Such modifications, however, cannot destroy the fundamental characteristics of the basic design reference. PuraLev® i30SU shows a head for a liquid pump having design characteristics which are basically the same as those in the claimed design, in that they consist of the following: a p ump head having a circular main body with four protruding ribs, one of which having a circular feature on a top surface therein; a n elongated round inlet feature having a widened end on a top surface thereof; a n elongated round outlet feature having a widened end on a side surface thereof; and t here protruding extrusions on a side surface thereof. 1.1 3.1 PuraLev® i30SU PuraLev® 600SU The claimed design shown in reproductions 1.1-1.7 differs from the PuraLev® i30SU reference in that the inlet and outlet elements are each shown with a round/circular fitting at ends thereof. Similarly, in reproductions 3.1-3.7, the claimed design differs from the PuraLev® i30SU reference in that the outlet element includes a round/circular fitting at an end thereof. The secondary reference PuraLev® 600SU teaches a head for a liquid pump having round/circular inlet and outlet elements a ends thereof. It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the ends of the inlet and outlet elements of the pump head disclosed by PuraLev® i30SU to incorporate round/circular fittings as demonstrated in PuraLev® 600SU . The claimed design would have no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references. This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen , 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter , 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas , 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle , 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian , 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981). Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103 and 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 calvin.vansant@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 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 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) /E.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2915