AIA
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election acknowledged
Applicant’s election of Group I for further prosecution herein, and concurrent amendment to the specification is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed 11/10/2025.
Examiner comment regarding the prior art
Although IN 422717-001 appears similar to the claimed design, the effective filing date of the claimed design is 1/10/2024, which is prior to the publication date (and the filing date) of the foreign reference. It therefore has not been applied as prior art.
Drawings
In view of the above stated election, applicant must cancel the figures corresponding to Embodiment 3.
Claim rejections
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
It is noted that although the examiner has only provided annotations of Embodiment 1, the same issues are understood to apply to Embodiments 2, since they are identical, aside from the change in color applied to portions of the handle.
1. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because there are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
Figs. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 show a structure present on the rear of the design which does not appear to be shown on Figs. 1.4-1.7. Compare below:
PNG
media_image1.png
793
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are seams present on Fig. 1.8 which are not apparent on Figs. 1.5 and 1.6
PNG
media_image2.png
923
1421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
837
1199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The transparent panel is darker on Fig. 1.5 than what is shown on Fig. 1.3
PNG
media_image4.png
830
673
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2. The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
The depth and three-dimensional appearance of the portions identified by darkened coloring below is not clear. Whether these elements are coplanar with surrounding surfaces or whether there is variation in depth cannot be determined. If there are recesses present, the depth therein cannot be determined.
PNG
media_image5.png
878
1413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
340
1614
media_image6.png
Greyscale
3. The three-dimensional appearance of the portions identified below on Fig. 1.6, by the semi-transparent mask bounded by broken lines is unclear due to the lack of clarity with respect to the image quality. These areas lack sufficient resolution to fully understand the elements therein.
PNG
media_image7.png
544
913
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies, inadequate disclosure, and poor image quality the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
Replacement drawings
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.
Avoidance of new matter
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
References cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5375. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Michael Stout can be reached on 571.272.0068. 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 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.
/MARY SHANNON MALLEY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924