DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendments
The amendments of 21 January 2026 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections—Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings of 21 January 2026 contain gray lines. In many of the amended portions of the drawings, grey lines appear next to the broken lines. The drawings do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84 because the lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined, clean, durable and black. 37 CFR 1.84(1). All of the Figures must be redrawn using a process that insures conformance with rule 37 CFR 1.84(1).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note also that the lines of the drawings are blurry with a peppering of black marks across the surface.
The drawings are objected to because reproductions 1.7, 1.8, 2.7 and 2.8 contain inconsistencies. Only 1 handle element is drawn and element appears to be in solid lines. Consider amending the drawings to show the design constantly and in broken lines.
PNG
media_image2.png
867
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The claim is again and FINALLY 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In response to the rejection under 35 USC 112 applicant has amended the specification and reproductions. However, the claim remains indefinite and non-enabling because the reproductions contain inconsistencies that lead to multiple interpretations of the design. The location and number of break lines in embodiment 2 is inconsistent. Reproductions 2.1, 2.3, 2.7 and 2.8 shows two break lines crossing the entire height of the design. In reproduction 2.2 and 2.4, three break lines are shown crossing the entire height of the design. If the break lines extend through the outer frame of the design, this indicates the entire design breaks at that point. Therefore, the breaks must be shown in the same location in every figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
709
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
856
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
862
287
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Replacement drawings must not contain new matter which is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
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 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.
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 SPTO'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 SPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Windowhttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE ANN GANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-0212. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 10am to 6pm EST. To act on behalf of the applicant in most situations, a properly executed power of attorney must be present in the application file. See MPEP 402.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Bugg can be reached on (571) 272-2998. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/private_pair/index.jsp.
For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLARE ANN GANNON/Examiner, Art Unit 2911
Prosecution Insights