Notice of 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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on December 20, 2024.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Groups I, and III – XII are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
REFUSAL
Reproduction Comment
The reproductions are improper for the reasons set forth below:
Partial Views: When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views. It must be clearly understood from where the partial view originates. The examiner suggests amending 2.8 to include a dashed label “2.9” that corresponds with the enlarged partial view shown in 2.9. See Examiner’s Example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
912
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement Reproductions
Replacement reproduction sheets must include all of the reproductions appearing on the prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. However, if the applicant cancels a reproduction, follow these steps:
Do not include the canceled reproduction on the replacement reproduction sheet.
Make appropriate changes to the reproduction descriptions for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show renumbering of the remaining reproduction.
If all the reproductions on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required.
A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions.
Label the replacement reproductions in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner rejects the amended reproductions, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
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).
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to for the following reasons stated below:
The present descriptions of 2.1 – 2.9 do not clearly and accurately describe the drawing views nor correspond to the election of Group II. To provide descriptions germane to the design shown (Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II), the descriptions of 2.1 – 2.9 should be amended as follows:
-- 2.1 is a perspective view of a faucet;
2.2 is a top view thereof;
2.3 is a bottom view thereof;
2.4 is a front view thereof;
2.5 is a rear view thereof;
2.6 is a left view thereof;
2.7 is a right view thereof;
2.8 is another perspective view thereof; and
2.9 is an enlarged view thereof taken from 2.8. --
Applicant is not required to make the amendment suggested by the examiner above. However, applicant may wish to consider making such amendment to place the application in better form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because:
Scope Inconsistencies: The indicated broken lines shown on the faucet are unclear, as there are two kinds of broken lines, and only one broken line statement. The examiner suggests specifically clarifying what is and is not part of the claimed design, and to include a broken line statement describing the dash-dot-dashed broken lines. See annotated drawings below for identification of broken lines that are not described.
PNG
media_image2.png
713
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The scope of the claimed design does not appear to be shown consistently in 2.1 -2.8. In 2.1 – 2.3, and 2.8, the indicated circular base is shown in broken lines. However, in 2.4 – 2.7, the indicated area of the circular base is shown in solid lines. The examiner suggests clarification and consistency to the scope and appearance of the claimed design. See annotated reproductions below.
PNG
media_image3.png
640
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
516
437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
586
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised that all of the preceding issues should be addressed to overcome this rejection, without the introduction of anything that was not shown in the original disclosure (i.e., new matter).
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the reproductions 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.
Refusal 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).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA N WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6457. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 5pm.
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, Sandra Snapp can be reached at 571-272-8364. 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.
/SAMANTHA WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2914