Non-Final Refusal
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 .
Election Without Traverse
In the paper received 01-05-2026, applicant elects without traverse the design shown in Group 1(Reproductions 1.1-1.13). Accordingly, the design shown in Group II stands withdrawn from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b).
General Information
The amendments filed by the applicant on 01-05-2026 are acknowledged. No new matter has been added.
35 USC 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is refused 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.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
The scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, reproduction 1.13 is described as showing a state of use, and that it does not form part of the claimed design. However, all portions of the article, including the environmental legs and decals, as well as portions of the article previously shown in broken line are shown in solid line. This makes it unclear what exactly is meant to be part of the claim or not. As currently disclosed, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image1.png
890
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by taking the following steps:
First, the reproduction must be amended such that all portions of the article or environment that are not meant to form part of the claim are shown in broken lines. The claimed design shown in reproduction 1.13 must be consistent with the other reproductions.
Second, the broken line statement, and the reproduction 1.13 feature description must be amended to clearly describe the reproduction. The broken line statement should include that the broken lines also show environment that forms no part of the claimed design, and the reproduction 1.13 feature description should read something like: --reproduction 1.13 shows the article in a state of use with environment--.
Reproductions 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.11 and 1.12 are inconsistent with each other. Portions of the connecting brackets for the frame are shown as broken line in some views and solid line in other views. In reproduction 1.8 the inner portion of the brackets on the shorter frame pieces also look different than how they are shown in the other views. This makes it unclear what exactly is meant to be part of the claim or not. As currently disclosed, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image2.png
998
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
656
1070
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by amending the reproductions to consistently show the features across all reproductions.
Reproduction 1.6 and 1.12 (bottom views) have portions that are not clearly described. Specifically, the rectangular features on the underside of the short frame pieces are only seen from a single orthographic view, so their exact depth or position or three dimensional shape cannot be understood. As currently disclosed, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image4.png
649
1011
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
665
1131
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this refusal by converting the unclear features to broken line, thereby
removing them from being part of the claim.
Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the reproductions provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this refusal, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. 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).
Corrected Reproductions Required
Corrected reproduction sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction 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 figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case:
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”, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 varun.kamat@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, Ex Parte Quayle, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands refused under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) as set forth above.
The references cited are considered the most pertinent art and not applied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VARUN SALIL KAMAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3264. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 ET.
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, Jennifer L Rempfer can be reached at (571) 270-0248. 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.
/V.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/JENNIFER L REMPFER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2932
Prosecution Insights