REFUSAL
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Multiple Embodiments
While the claim may be subject to a restriction election requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121, such a determination will be deferred pending the resolution of the rejections below.
Claim Objection--Specification
The title is objected to because it is used inconsistently. The title in the claim, “slats for indoor blind” does not agree with the title “slat for indoor blind” used in the figure descriptions. The title of the design being claimed must correspond to the article in which the design is embodied or applied to (MPEP 1503.01) and be used consistently (37 CFR 1.153).
The specification is objectionable because the special description describes the appearance of the design. Descriptions of the design’s appearance are considered superfluous as the drawing views are generally their own best description. The information in the last paragraph of the specification should be removed.
The specification is objectionable because the special description fails to explicitly identify the purpose of the broken lines in the drawings in exact terms so that the scope of the claim is clear under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The specification must explicitly state whether the broken lines are used to illustrate unclaimed environment, portions of the article that are not claimed or unclaimed boundaries within the claimed design. When broken lines are used to represent stitching, a statement should be included in the specification identifying the broken lines as illustrating claimed stitching.
Claim Rejection--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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and not enabling because the scope of the claim is not clearly understood without resorting to conjecture due to the use of broken lines and shading. In the drawings, it is not clear where the claim begins and ends. The drawings contain several instances of solid lines that abruptly convert to broken lines without a clear boundary distinguishing the end of the claim. Additionally, the drawings show shading applied to areas surrounded by broken lines, which further obscures a clear interpretation of the claim because shading, color and shadowing are only permitted on claimed surfaces. In order to clearly distinguish between the claimed and unclaimed matter, consider defining the scope of the claim by adding straight boundary lines to the surfaces and only using grey shading on claimed surfaces.
The claim is indefinite and not enabling because the scope of the claim is not clearly understood without resorting to conjecture due to confusing descriptions in the specification. It is not understood if the claim is directed to the single slat as shown in reproductions 1.1-1.2, 2.1, and 31.-3.2, or to the two slats as shown in Reproductions 1.2-1.3, 2.2-2.3 and 3.3. If the claim only includes one slat, only one element should be shown in solid lines in reproductions 1.2-1.3, 2.2-2.3 and 3.3 with all other elements should be in broken lines. The applicant may claim multiple elements as a set within the same application, however, the specification must clearly communicate whether the elements shown in the drawings should be understood as a complete set. If the applicant wishes to claim multiple elements, the figure descriptions should clarify that the combination of elements shown in reproductions 1.2-1.3, 2.2-2.3 and 3.3 represents the scope of the claim but reproductions 1.1-1.2, 2.1, and 31.-3.2 show a single element is shown for ease of illustration. The title must also acknowledge that multiple individual elements are claimed by describing the claim as a set. For example: “set of slats for an indoor blind”
The claim is indefinite and not enabling because the drawings contain inconsistencies that lead to multiple interpretations of the design. Reproductions 1.1-1.2 and 3.1-3.2 show the design with a notable thickness. However, Reproductions 1.3 and 3.3 depicts the design as paper thin with no notable thickness.
PNG
media_image1.png
231
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants should exercise caution when preparing new drawings and/or amending the specification to avoid introducing matter that does not comply with the description requirement of 35 CFR 112(a).
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.” 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. 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.
A reply to the Office action is required to avoid abandonment of the application.
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, Michelle Wilson can be reached on (571) 272-7639. 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 2926