CTNF 35/523,224 CTNF 97372 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detailed Action Election Applicant’s response received on 1/12/2026 and the election without traverse of the design designated as Embodiment 3 (Reproductions 3.1-3.8) is acknowledged. Embodiments 1-2 and 4-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being for the non-elected designs. 37 CFR 1.142(b) Also acknowledged is applicant's cancellation of Reproductions 1.1-2.8 and 4.1-8.8, along with their respective descriptions. Please see the attached canceled reproductions. Specification Objection The specification is objected to as follows: Statements which describe or suggest other embodiments of the claimed design which are not illustrated in the visual disclosure are not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent (MPEP 1503.01(II)(B)(2). In the applicant’s description of the broken lines shown in the reproductions, the applicant specifies that broken lines “in design 3” form no part of the claimed design, despite a single design being shown in the reproductions, improperly implying the existence of several designs in the claim. Accordingly, the specification must be amended to cancel the phrase [[in design 3]] . Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. §103 Applicants have defined the scope of their claim to include less than the entire article, i.e. portions of the Mobile Phone are not included in the claim. The practice of claiming a design embodied in less than the entire article was confirmed in the decision of In re Zahn , 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). This practice also opens to the examiner the liberty of applying a similar scope to cited prior art, regardless of any additional features disclosed in the reference. Therefore, it is reasonable to compare such a design to prior art embodied in less than an entire article. The examiner has done so in the following rejection. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 15-19-aia AIA The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL reference Realme 8i pictures (hereinafter “8i” ) in view of the prior art as demonstrated by US design patent reference US D973621 S (hereinafter “Hao” ) . 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. 8i has an overall appearance with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing a mobile phone having a protruding rounded-rectangular camera plateau element. Positioned offset on this camera plateau are four protruding cylindrical camera barrel features, in a square arrangement. The camera plateau element has no additional features on its surface, such as sensor openings, microphone holes, or flash elements. The four camera elements are shown with inconsistently-sized circular openings, featuring a large opening on the upper left, a small opening on the upper right, and medium-sized openings on the bottom left and bottom right. The claimed design differs from 8i in that the camera plateau element extends farther from the camera barrel elements, and to the right as opposed to extending down. Hao shows a camera plateau element that extends away from the camera barrel elements the same distance as is shown in the claimed design, and to the right as opposed to extending down. It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify 8i with Hao by replacing the camera plateau element of 8i with the one shown in Hao, because the modification is well known in the art to be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to make this modification due to consumer demand for a bolder appearance, or to provide more space for internal components, to provide two hypothetical examples. Please see the following illustrations: PNG media_image1.png 428 642 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 418 385 media_image2.png Greyscale Reproduction 3.2 of the claimed design. 8i PNG media_image3.png 599 172 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 173 44 media_image4.png Greyscale Reproduction 3.3 of the claimed design. 8i PNG media_image5.png 596 578 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 561 536 media_image6.png Greyscale Reproduction 3.2 of the claimed design. Hao The examiner notes that, while there is a slight taper to the camera plateau element shown in the claimed design that is not shown in the examiner’s combination of references, this difference is considered de minimis, as it is a miniscule difference in light of the similarities, and as such is not considered to be a source of non-obviousness. A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected reproductions are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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: The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as set forth above. The references cited, but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. Hague - Reply Reminder 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). 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 Interviews A telephonic 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. Notes on Correspondence The merits of the application may not be discussed via email unless an appropriate authorization for email communication is placed in the U.S. application file at the USPTO. Replies to office actions may not be sent via email. For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file." Please see MPEP 502.03 II (Article 5) for more details. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence 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 For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josiah D Parsons whose telephone number is (571)272-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm 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, Christian McLean, can be reached at (571)270-1996. 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. /JOSIAH D. PARSONS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2916 Application/Control Number: 35/523,224 Page 2 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 35/523,224 Page 3 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 35/523,224 Page 4 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 35/523,224 Page 5 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 35/523,224 Page 6 Art Unit: 2952