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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/21/2023
Specification Objections
Extraneous Disclosure
The disclosure following the Description of the Reproduction(s) should be deleted as the matter recited is extraneous in nature with respect to the ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture.
Broken Line Description
See the refusals portion of this office for more details on issues concerning the broken line statement.
Reproduction Objections
Reproduction Quality
The reproductions are objected to for poor line quality and failing to fully disclose the industrial
design because reproductions must be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. As can be seen in in the areas annotated with circles, the lines have a jagged appearance. In addition, the areas rendered in broken lines appear fuzzy and blur together in certain areas. See the areas annotated with circles below for more details (The issue applies to all Figures. Figure 1.1 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inconsistency
The reproductions are objectionable due to inconsistencies seen in the figures. These inconsistent figures must be corrected to disclose a consistent design. See the sketches below for identification of the inconsistent subject matter. Please ensure that any corrections are carried throughout the figure drawings.
In Figure 1.1, it appears that a line is missing from the front-end cap/edge of the shelf, which is seen in Figure 1.2. See the sketches below and areas annotated with arrows for more details.
PNG
media_image2.png
1298
1442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figures 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 fasteners are seen protruding from where the vertical supports connect to the shelf brackets. In Figures 1.4 and 1.6, these appear to not be connected, with a visible gap present whereas in Figure 1.5, they appear connected. See the sketches below and areas annotated with arrows for more details (Figure 1.3 included for reference).
PNG
media_image3.png
2151
1605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Replacement Reproductions
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office
action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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
Claim Refusal - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The claim is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is indefinite because the reproductions include, in figure(s) 1.1 through 1.7, broken lines that are not described in the specification, and the scope of the claimed design cannot be determined.
If the broken line(s) represent portions of the article or environmental structure for which protection is not sought, applicant may overcome this rejection by inserting a statement similar to the following into the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132):
--The broken line showing of Figures 1.1 through 1.7 is for the purpose of illustrating portions of the Refrigerator Shelf Assembly and forms no part of the claimed design.--
Claim Refusal- 35 USC § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 non-enabled. Specifically, the precise shape and relative location of certain elements cannot be determined. One skilled in the art would necessarily resort to conjecture attempting to understand these details. Please see sketches below for identification of the non-enabled subject matter. In an effort to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112, (a) and (b) rejection, follow the guidelines provided with each sketch description.
In Figure 1, the area highlighted in grey and annotated with an arrow is indefinite and non-enabled as the precise shape and location of these elements cannot be determined from a single view. In an effort to overcome the rejection, convert the areas WITHIN the highlighted grey area to lightweight broken lines. See the sketches below for more details.
PNG
media_image4.png
798
1406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Figure 1.7, the areas highlighted in grey, as well as the lines annotated with arrows are indefinite and non-enabled as the precise shape and location cannot be determined from a single view. In an effort to overcome the refusal, convert the areas WITHIN the highlighted areas, as well as the additional lines annotated with arrows. See the sketches below for more details.
PNG
media_image5.png
931
1594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to amend the drawings to fully show the elements considered to be nonenabling, however to enter such information now, by way of cross-section or rear perspective views, would most likely create a new design that is not described in the original disclosure.
If the design cannot be clarified without changing its appearance, and there is no description of this changed appearance in the original disclosure, then applicant may wish to amend the design such that the non-enabled areas are shown in broken lines, therefore removing them from the claim. Any amendment to the claim must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the scope now being asserted at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. See 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter.
Conclusion
The claim stands refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as well as 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the appearance of the claimed design.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
Signature Required
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this action 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 l.33(b).
Discussions Regarding the Merits of an Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered in 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 US PTO. See below for additional information regarding interviews.
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 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 prose applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to
communicate by telephone, the examiner may be contacted directly via email to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. When proposing an interview appointment, include proposed days and times for the proposed call, and confirm who will initiate the call. For the examiner's work schedule, see Examiner Contact Information below.
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. See MPEP 502.03.11 for further information. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see below.
Submitting Replies to the USPTO
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only). See
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
By mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450;
By facsimile via the USPTO official fax number (571-273-8300); or
By hand-carry to the USPTO Alexandria, Virginia, Customer Service Window.
For more information, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J DAVID whose telephone number is (703)756-1578. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-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, Richard Kearney can be reached at 571-272-8312. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOSEPH DAVID/Examiner, Art Unit 2938
/RICHARD EDGAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2931
Prosecution Insights