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 .
Objections
Specification
The specification is objected to due to the following:
Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they must describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately. (MPEP 1503.01 (II) and 1504.01(b)). Therefore:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. MPEP 606.01. The word “Drier” is an adjective meaning “more dry”, while “dryer” is describing an article of manufacture; a machine that dries things. In the present application, it is clear that the claim is directed to a single “Hair Dryer”. Therefore, for proper grammar, the title is suggested to be amended to:
--Hair Dryer--
The title must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted.
Drawing
The drawing are objected to due to the following:
There is an inconsistency between Fig. 1.1 and the rest of the drawing disclosure. In Fig. 1.1 the right U-shape on the front is not matching the other two shapes. However in Figs. 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 the left U-shape is matching the other two U-shapes. Correction is required to make all lines consistent.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
272
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
414
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling due to the following:
The appearance and shape or configuration of the design cannot be determined or understood due to an inadequate visual disclosure (MPEP § 1504.04):
The exact shape and appearance of the Hair Drier cannot be determined based on the disclosure provided because applicant is claiming a three-dimensional article that is only shown in a single planar view. It cannot be determined, for example, whether or not there is depth and three-dimensionality associated with various features inside the front of the hair drier. There are multiple rings at “A” where the depth cannot be understood. Are the rings at “A” coplanar to each other or do all rings have different depths? Are the shapes at “B” coplanar to each other or do all the shapes have different depths? The single view does not clearly distinguish between contours and planar surfaces nor does it explain the differences in depth between various features.
PNG
media_image5.png
682
742
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The exact shape and appearance cannot be understood due to the confusing showing of the front vent. In Fig. 1.1 from the inner star pattern there are three rings at “C”. However, in Fig. 1.5 there are two rings at “C” before the shapes at “B”. Due the inconsistent and confusing showing of the rings, the exact shape and appearance cannot be understood.
PNG
media_image6.png
750
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
750
760
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The exact shape and appearance of the Hair Drier cannot be determined based on the disclosure provided because applicant is claiming a three-dimensional article that is only shown in a single planar view. It cannot be determined, for example, whether or not there is depth and three-dimensionality associated with the rings at “D” on the Fig. 1.4 rear view. What are the depths of the rings at “D”? Are the circles at “D” coplanar or do they have different depths? The single view does not clearly distinguish between contours and planar surfaces nor does it explain the differences in depth between various features.
PNG
media_image8.png
548
636
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
471
532
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Matter, such as environmental structure or portions of the “article”, which is shown in a reproduction but for which protection is not sought may be indicated by statement in the description and/or by means of dotted or broken lines or coloring in the reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Hague Agreement Administrative Instruction 403.
Applicant may indicate that protection is not sought for those portions of the reproductions which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by amending the reproductions to color those portions or convert those portions to broken lines and by amending the specification to include a statement that the portions of the article shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design or a statement that the portions of the article shown by coloring form no part of the claimed design provided such amendments do not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121).
Replacement Reproductions
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 or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and CFR 1.121(f).
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 Elizabeth.borsetti@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 wok 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 Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
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/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claimed design is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b), as set forth above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH BORSETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Wendy Arminio can be reached on (571)270-0221. 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.
/E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2935
/MESSINA L SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2936