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 .
FINAL REFUSAL
Applicant's response with amendments received on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged, however, the Specification objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on November 4, 2025 has not been fully resolved. Therefore, the Specification objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection dated on November 4, 2025 has been withdrawn, and a new objection and rejections have been issued and made final below.
The Specification
The term, “Fig.” in the specification is objected to as for being improper. Applicant is advised the numbering must conform to the numbering requirements of Hague Administrative Instruction 405, as required under 37 CFR 1.1026. Figure numbering pursuant of 37 CFR 1.84(u) does not apply to Hague applications. See 37 CFR 1.1061(b).
Therefore, the Reproductions should be amended to read:
--1.1 is a top view showing my new design for a COOKING OVEN;
1.2 is a bottom view thereof;
1.3 is left side view thereof;
1.4 is a right side view thereof;
1.5 is a front view thereof;
1.6 is a bottom view thereof; and
1.7 is a perspective view thereof.--
Drawings
The amended reproductions received on 02/04/2026 are objected to as for being improper since the drawings are labeled as “FIGs”. See 37 CFR 1.1026. It is recommended that the drawings be labeled according to their Reproduction number, i.e.- 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112 (a)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the 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 COOKING OVEN as shown in the new amendments to the Drawings submitted on 2/4/2026 was not originally described. See Examiner’s examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1203
1368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
928
1487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the COOKING OVEN as shown in the amendments submitted on 02/19/2026.
OR
Submit new drawing views with the details shown consistently with what was originally disclosed on 01/17/2025 without introducing new matter.
OR
Return the portions mentioned above in the amended drawings back to that of the original disclosure with attention to the 112 (a) and (b) rejections of the previous Office Action dated 11/04/2025 without introducing new matter.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) because the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the same nor does it particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling since the exact shape (depth, location) and appearance of the claimed design cannot be understood. Specifically, there are features of the design in which the placement and configuration appear differently between the views or have details that are not located in the same corresponding areas and in some areas are not shown at all. As a result, the misaligned and inconsistent illustrations leave the exact appearance of the claim left to conjecture. See areas of inconsistencies below.
PNG
media_image4.png
940
1336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
881
1767
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
930
1845
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1120
1976
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1120
1976
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
863
1975
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In an attempt to overcome the rejection, applicant(s) may submit new drawing views with all details of the claimed design consistently shown throughout without introducing new matter.
Reproductions
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are suggested 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. All replacement sheets should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement thereof, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by U.S.C 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Refusal Reply
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).
Conclusion
The claim stands finally refused under 35 USC § 112 (a) and 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b) for the reasons set forth above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 courtney.clarkrasheed@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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY CLARK-RASHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-9150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, JAE LIANG can be reached at 571-270-0229. 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.
/C.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2921
/JAE LIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2921
Prosecution Insights