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 .
Acknowledgement of Applicant Amendments and Response
Acknowledgement is made of the applicant's response received on 01/21/2026 wherein amendments have been made to the drawings and specification. The merits of the application have been fully reconsidered in view of applicant's response. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection has not been sufficiently overcome. Additionally, the amended claim has introduced new matter. In the amended drawings, the applicant shows lining that was previously uninterrupted as being interrupted, suggesting shading or contour. This amended profile cannot be confirmed by the original disclosure. Therefore, in addition to the Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is now presented and made FINAL.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the new
matter is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not
reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in
possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re
Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d
1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, the amended claim introduces new matter which is not supported by
the original disclosure. The applicant now shows lining that was previously uninterrupted as being interrupted, suggesting shading or contour. This configuration cannot be confirmed by the original disclosure.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the applicant remove the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. See annotated images below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
1771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
483
1713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
881
1811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 112(a) and (b)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), 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 regards as the invention.
Specifically, in some places, the visual disclosure of the claimed design as originally filed is of such poor quality that its overall shape and appearance cannot be understood (MPEP § 1504.04). For example, the lines appear to merge or be of a heavier line weight, making the area’s exact profile unclear in some areas. Furthermore, in the front, perspective view the fluted surface around the perimeter appears to be textured rather than smooth which appears inconsistent with corresponding views. See annotated image below for limited examples. The applicant is encouraged to reconsider the quality of the drawings as a whole to ensure they are clearly understood throughout.
PNG
media_image4.png
544
1394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1023
1391
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
962
1405
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, there are portions of the drawings that have an exact depth and profile that cannot be understood based on what is shown and described. For example, on the front of the design, the thinner, rectangular portion on the bottom right has a profile that cannot be understood based on what is shown and described. It is not understood if it is flat, flush, open or recessed to some degree. On the back, although the two components on the middle left are understood to be protruding, the depth of their inner portions is not understood. Also, the location and profile of the central, broad rectangular component on the back as well as the encircled areas shown below are not understood. It is not understood how inset these portions are and if they are open, closed, curving, or otherwise. Likewise, the exact locations of the innermost portions of the bottom of the design are not understood. See annotated images below for reference.
PNG
media_image7.png
1010
1381
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
530
983
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
746
974
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
911
1002
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Although the examiner has made an earnest effort to identify all problematic areas, the areas subject to rejection may not be limited to the abovementioned areas due to the extensive nature of them.
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 CR 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.
In any attempt to overcome this rejection, care must be exercised to avoid introduction
of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 132
and 37 CFR 1.121.
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant' s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth above.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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.
Any reply to the notification of refusal must be filed directly with the Office and not through the International Bureau. A reply to the notification of refusal is subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. See 37 CFR 1.1063(b).
Any further Office action following the notification of refusal, such as a Final Rejection, will normally be sent directly to the applicant.
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 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 terilyn.davis@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 official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a
notification of refusal, 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:
• 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
See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be
viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERILYN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Rich Edgar can be reached on (571)272-4816.
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.
/TERILYN DAVIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 2922
/GEORGE J ULSH/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights