DETAILED ACTION: REFUSAL
Notice of 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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application, KR30-2023-0030051, filed in The Republic of Korea on August 1st, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, filed on February 4th, 2025.
Specification
The following comments are presented concerning the specification:
Figure Descriptions: Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, if they do not describe the views of the reproductions clearly and accurately, the examiner should object to the unclear and/or inaccurate descriptions and suggest language which is more clearly descriptive of the views. See MPEP 1503.01(II).
Additionally, Applicants are cautioned against using "reference view" as a figure description in international design applications designating the United States. While "reference view" is commonly used in some foreign countries as a figure description, this term does not have any special meaning in U.S practice. See MPEP 2920.04(a)(II).
To avoid misinterpretation of the descriptions of Reproductions 1.1-1.22 as different embodiments, the descriptions should be amended. The Examiner suggests the following:
--1.1 : Perspective, Closed
1.2 : Front, Closed
1.3 : Back, Closed
1.4: Left, Closed
1.5 : Right, Closed
1.6 : Top, Closed
1.7 : Bottom, Closed
1.8 : Perspective view, first alternate open configuration
1.9 : Front view, first alternate open configuration
1.10 : Back view, first alternate open configuration
1.11 : Left view, first alternate open configuration
1.12 : Right view, first alternate open configuration
1.13 : Top view, first alternate open configuration
1.14: Bottom view, first alternate open configuration
1.15 : Perspective view, second alternate open configuration
1.16 : Front view, second alternate open configuration
1.17 : Back view, second alternate open configuration
1.18 : Left view, second alternate open configuration
1.19 : Right view, second alternate open configuration
1.20 : Top view, second alternate open configuration
1.21 : Bottom view, second alternate open configuration
1.22 : Perspective view, third alternate configuration --
Specification Order: The following order or arrangement should be observed in framing a design patent specification:
(1) Preamble, stating name of the applicant, title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied.
(2) Cross-reference to related applications.
(3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
(4) Description of the figure or figures of the drawing.
(5) Feature description.
(6) A single claim.
For proper order of the specification, the descriptive statements should be placed before the broken line statement. See the suggested example below:
-- This design is for a laptop computer that becomes thinner from the back to the front. As shown in reproductions 1.15 to 1.22, this design is used as a tablet computer after the display part has been rotated 360 degrees; Reproduction 1.8 to 1.14 are views in a condition in which the claimed design has been opened; Reproduction 1.15 to 1.21 are views in a condition in which the display part has been rotated 360 degrees; Reproduction 1.22 is a reference view showing the state of use where the display part has been rotated close to 360 degrees and the claimed design is positioned upright.
The broken lines depict portions of the laptop computer that form no part of the claimed design. --
Reproductions
The following comments are presented concerning the reproductions:
When inconsistencies are found among the views, the examiner should object to the drawings and request that the views be made consistent. See MPEP 1503.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
1072
1283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The configuration of the chamfer in Reproduction 1.14 is inconsistent with Reproductions 1.1, 1.2, 1.7-1.8, 1.13, 1.15 and 1.20, which show the chamfer as cut straight through the bottom panel and showing a straight top edge only when the device is in the closed position. Contrary to the aforementioned figures, Reproduction 1.14, which is an open configuration, shows a straight edge above the chamfer as though the top panel is overlapping when in a closed configuration. See the annotated images below for comparison:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. See MPEP 1503.02.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claim is not consistently or clearly disclosed. Specifically:
Reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. See Hague Rule 9(2)(a) regarding Requirements Concerning Reproductions. There are several details of the laptop computer that are obscured by the heavy line weights and insufficient image quality. Such areas include the details around the rear hinges and the layers and/or bevels of the upper display. See the areas, the annotated images below for examples:
PNG
media_image2.png
539
1776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
832
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
702
972
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
810
856
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
492
779
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Based on the views provided, the extent of the claimed scope on the front bezel is unclear. Lack of appropriate surface shading in the drawing as filed may render the design nonenabling and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP 1503.02(II).
Due to the absence of surface shading in Reproductions 1.8-1.9, 1.13, 1.15, 1.20-1.22 or other clarifying information in the disclosure (e.g., appendix, specification, etc.), one cannot determine whether (B1) the entire interior surfaces of the upper and lower panels are unclaimed, if (B2) only broken line portions themselves are unclaimed with the panels claimed or (B3) if the claim consists of some other combination of surfaces and portions. See the annotated images below for possible interpretations:
Are the entire inset surfaces of the upper and lower panels unclaimed (with only the outer surfaces claimed)?
PNG
media_image7.png
702
972
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Are the entire inset surfaces of the upper and lower panels claimed (with the trackpad, key array, inset display and oblong protrusions unclaimed)?
PNG
media_image8.png
965
992
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Does the claim consist of some other combination of claimed surfaces?
PNG
media_image9.png
966
988
media_image9.png
Greyscale
For point A, Applicant may consider resubmitting the reproductions at a higher resolution so that smaller details are legible.
For point B, Applicant may consider:
Applying shade lines to all claimed surfaces, provided that the shade lines do not introduce a configuration that does not have support in the original disclosure OR
Clarifying the scope by amending the broken line statement
Amended Drawings: If choosing to address the rejection by way of replacement reproductions, 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 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 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.
In any attempt to prepare new reproductions in an effort to overcome any objections or rejections, 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.
Reply Reminder to all Refusals
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.
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 altaira.swangin@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 Patent Center https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ see 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). It is noted that faxing might result in loss of details in drawing disclosure.
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references are relevant for establishing the techniques and conventions known in the art at the time that Applicant’s claim was filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTAIRA J SWANGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M.
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, Erich Herbermann, can be reached on (571) 272-6390. 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.
/A. S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2916
/ERICH G HERBERMANN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2916
Prosecution Insights