DETAILED ACTION
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 Failed Retrieval
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Canadian Design Application No. 222859 filed on July 14, 2023. It is noted, however, that there is a Failed Status Report from the Priority Document Exchange in the file, which means the applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Canadian Design Application No. 222859 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.
An attempted Priority Document Exchange (PDX) filing was made, but a failure status report resulted for the foreign application 222859 on 07/14/2023. The applicant may contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) Customer Support Center at 1-866-217-9197 (toll free) M-F 6am – Midnight (Eastern Time) or email PDX@uspto.gov or file a certified paper copy of foreign priority for this application.
Objection to Foreign Priority Claim
Examiner objects to the applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Canadian Application No. 29/897,423. The application is not Canadian, it is a United States design application. An international design application designating the United States shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior foreign application, a prior international application as defined in section 351(c) designating at least 1 country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least 1 country other than the United States. See 35 U.S.C. 386. The applicant may claim benefit of earlier filing date in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 120.
Reproductions Objections
The reproductions are objected to for showing the left and right sides of the kennel inconsistently. See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. The left side views of FIGS. 1.16, 1.9, and 1.2 have small circular features that are shown inconsistently. Feature (A) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.16 and 1.9. Feature (A) has one circle in FIG. 1.2. Feature (B) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.16 and 1.2. Feature (B) has one circle in FIG. 1.9. Features (C) have two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.16. Features (C) have one circle in FIG. 1.9. Feature (D) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.16 and 1.9. Feature (D) has one circle in FIG. 1.2. Feature (E) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.16 and 1.2. Feature (E) has one circle in FIG. 1.9.
The right side views have similar inconsistencies. Feature (F) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.18. Feature (F) has one circle in FIGS. 1.11 and 1.4. Features (G) have two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.18. Features (G) have one circle in FIG. 1.11. Feature (H) has two concentric circles in FIGS. 1.18. Feature (H) has one circle in FIGS. 1.11 and 1.4. Correction is required to show the left and right sides of the kennel consistently. See examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1602
2146
media_image1.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. (See MPEP § 1503.02.)
Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 171 Provisional Double Patenting
The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design as that claimed in copending U.S. Application No. 29/897,423. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. See examples below.
PNG
media_image2.png
1236
970
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a “same invention” type double patenting rejection. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 171 (Double Patenting).
Hague-Reply Reminder for all Refusals
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).
Notes on Correspondence
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.glassberg@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 work 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.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, 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:
International design applications can be filed electronically through the USPTO via Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
See the Patent Center Quick Start Guide for international design application submissions available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Patent_Center_User_Guide_September_2023.pdf.
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
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANNE GLASSBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-9934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, George J Ulsh can be reached on (571)270-1433. 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.
/ELIZABETH ANNE GLASSBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 2925