DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on October 01, 2025 has been fully and carefully considered. The amendments to the drawings do not fully overcome the refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Further, the amendments to the drawings do not consistently depict the claimed design. Additionally, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive that the refusal should be withdrawn. See comments below. Therefore, the refusal is presented again below as necessitated by amendment. The amendments to the drawings also fail to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, both an objection under 35 U.S.C. 132 and a refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are presented below as necessitated by amendment. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL as necessitated by amendment.
Objections to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Fig. 1.1 shows the large broken line square elements on the left and the small broken line square elements on the right, whereas Fig. 1.7 shows the large broken line square elements on the right and the small broken line square elements on the left. See below.
PNG
media_image1.png
691
1156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For accuracy and to avoid confusion, Figs. 1.1 and 1.7 should be amended for consistency. In coordination with the below objection for new matter, applicant may consider amending Fig. 1.7 to show the large broken line square elements on the left and the small broken line square elements on the right to be consistent with Fig. 1.1.
Figs. 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6 show a small broken line circular element, pointed to below, whereas Fig. 1.7 shows a large broken line circular element with a central cross element.
PNG
media_image2.png
691
1156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For accuracy and to avoid confusion, Figs. 1.1, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7 should be amended for consistency. In coordination with the below objection for new matter, applicant may consider amending Fig. 1.7 to show a small broken line circular element to be consistent with Figs. 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6.
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 U.S.C. 132 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
35 U.S.C. 132 Objection (New Matter)
The drawings are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure on October 25, 2024 for Fig. 1.7 to show the square elements as reversed (i.e., the large square elements on the right and the small square elements on the left) and a large broken line circular element with a central cross element as pointed to below.
PNG
media_image3.png
1080
1308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this objection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended subject matter or amend Fig. 1.7 to show the square elements in the original orientation and a small circular broken line element.
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:
Figs. 1.1-1.4 and 1.7 show a broken line edge, pointed to below, whereas Fig. 1.6 shows no broken line edge.
PNG
media_image4.png
322
1094
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.7 shows solid line circular edges, pointed to below, whereas Fig. 1.1 shows no solid line circular edges.
PNG
media_image5.png
691
1156
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this portion of the refusal by amending the drawings to clearly and consistently depict the claimed design.
The disclosure does not provide certainty as to the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the elements shown pointed to below without resorting to conjecture.
PNG
media_image6.png
314
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
428
764
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this portion of the refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for elements considered indefinite and nonenabling above by amending the reproductions to convert the elements to broken lines, clearly and consistently throughout all corresponding reproductions, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See 37 C.F.R. 1.1026 and Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403.
If applicant chooses to do so, any surface contour shading must be removed as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the internal portions of Figures 1.4 and 1.6 clearly represent solid, inward protuberances from the outer vertical walls that abut the circuit board, which is indicated by the broken lines.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. It should be understood that when a surface or portion of an article is disclosed in full lines in the drawing it is considered part of the claimed design and its shape and appearance must be clearly and accurately depicted in order to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP 1504.04.I.A. A design is a unitary thing and all of its portions are material in that they contribute to the appearance which constitutes the design.
The internal portions in Figures 1.4 and 1.6 are only shown in singular planar views which does not provide exact clarity as to the exact appearances and three-dimensional configuration of the internal portions. Though applicant argues that the internal portions are inward protuberances, the disclosure does not make clear how, or in what way, the portions protrude - specifically, whether the bottom half of the portions are flat or angled, nor whether the top portion is rounded concavely or convexly is made clear from the singular planar views – nor does the disclosure make clear the internal portions exact depth in relation to the surrounding edges/surfaces.
Therefore, absent such full, clear, concise and exact understanding, the disclosure fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) because such disclosure fails to enable a designer of ordinary skill in the art to make an article having the shape and appearance of the design for which protection is sought. The fact that a designer of ordinary skill must resort to conjecture to understand the exact appearance and three-dimensionality renders the claim indefinite. Moreover, there can be no enablement of an indefinite claim. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) is maintained.
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The claim is FINALLY REFUSED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure on October 25, 2025 for the two solid line circular edges pointed to below in Fig. 1.7. The current showing of the claimed design has no antecedent basis in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes impermissible new matter.
PNG
media_image8.png
1080
1166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
To overcome this refusal, applicant may either convincingly demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or amend Fig. 1.7 to show no solid line circular edges.
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 brett.melliar@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)
o 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 is FINALLY REFUSED under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of refusal 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure. The additionally cited references show the state of the art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to W. BRETT MELLIAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6130. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 7am to 5pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s AU Supervisor, Erich Herbermann, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-6390. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
/WILLIAM B MELLIAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2916