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 .
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully reconsidered in light of applicant's response received 9/24/2025. It is the Examiner's position that the rejection of record under 35 USC 112 has not been overcome by applicant's amendment and is hereby set forth again and made FINAL.
Final Rejection – 35 USC 112
The claim is AGAIN AND 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.
Applicant’s response fails to make definite the areas of indefiniteness that were discussed in the office action of 7/30/2025. The areas of indefiniteness that were discussed in the action and not overcome in the replacement drawings are:
From the action:
--The claim is 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 in the following ways:
The figures do not show the item consistently. 1.1 appears to show an indentation along most of the sidewall that cannot be found in the other reproductions, A. The other inconsistency is the shape of the interior, B. In 1.1 we are shown a gently sloping inner wall that possibly abruptly shifts to move upward when the sloping wall hits the back sidewall. 1.3 shows the interior as an oval having a flat bottom with no sloping bottom. 1.2 appears to show that the sidewall closest to the viewer is thinner top to bottom than the 1.1 and that there may be an upward contour on the bottom of the item.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
1184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
--
Applicant response: Applicant disagrees and states that the figures are shown consistently. Applicant states, “First of all, the material of the claimed design is transparent as shown. Second, the portion "A" indicated by Examiner is an opening with a short wall and consistently shown in reproductions 1.2 and 1.3, and the portion "B" is a concave portion with a curved bottom surface. For a better understanding, Applicant has provided the annotated drawings below for reference.
PNG
media_image2.png
774
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner response:
PNG
media_image3.png
386
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
C does not look the same in the annotated drawing as it does in the original drawing. The annotated drawing that the applicant included in the reply shows a curved sidewall and a pair of solid lines that form a perfect oval on the portion of the item where it curves inward toward the interior.
D, E, F, G and H do not look at all like the sidewall of the annotated drawing, Figure 1.2, that the applicant provided, or like the original drawing. Applicant states that the invention is transparent. This is shown in the provided Appendix drawings and it may be the case for the textured embodiment, but this current embodiment appears to be glossy and opaque. If it were transparent than it would be possible to see through the material, like is shown in the Appendix drawings:
PNG
media_image4.png
606
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As it stands, 1.1 does not look like the other figures. Even if the studio lighting is the culprit causing the difference in appearance, 1.1 is not understandable and does not look like the other figures.—
It is recommended that the applicant submit reproductions that are evenly lighted and are consistent with each other without adding new matter.
--The examiner is not convinced that the two original embodiments are different except for the textured surface in the second embodiment. She thinks it may be possible that 1.1 and 1.2 have an altered appearance due to the reflections from the studio lighting when the item was photographed.
If embodiments I and II have the same shape and appearance except for the texture these embodiments should not be restricted out. Please see original Restriction Requirement.—
Applicant states that the embodiments are the same except for the texture.
Examiner response: Due to the difference in the appearance of 1.1, the embodiment cannot be rejoined because the appearance in 1.1 is vastly different than the textured embodiment.
The response did not overcome the issues with consistent appearance. Applicant may wish to submit drawings, rather than AutoCad.
The Appendix should be cancelled by the applicant or the Examiner will cancel before allowance.
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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, 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.
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
Conclusion
The claim is AGAIN AND FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA R UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-7652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Lilyana Bekic can be reached at 571-272-7425. 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.
/CYNTHIA R UNDERWOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2918 12/30/2025