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 .
Refusal
Detailed Office Action
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on People's Republic of China Design Application No. CN2023304325407, filed on 07/11/2023. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 35 USC § 119(b).
Multiple Embodiments
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 – 1.1-1.7: The claim shows a base for earphones charging case, having a substantially triangular pyramid shape. The claimed design is depicted as line drawings.
Embodiment 2 – 2.1-2.7: The claim shows a base for earphones charging case, similar to Embodiment 1. However, the claimed design is depicted as 3D renderings.
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. The difference between the appearances of the embodiments, specifically the line drawings versus the 3D renderings, is considered minor and patentably indistinct, or is shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application, as set forth below.
Specification
The following formal matter is noted:
Descriptions of the reproductions are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they should describe the views of the reproductions clearly and accurately. Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II. There are redundant reproduction descriptions. Only one set of reproduction descriptions is necessary. Accordingly, for clarity, one set of descriptions should be deleted.
The feature description reads:
“Design features that need to be protected include the shape and/or configuration of the base for earphones charging case;”
This statement is unnecessary and adds no new information because features shown in solid line represent the claim in a design application. Therefore, this statement should be deleted.
The feature statement reads:
“ The color shown on the claimed design forms no part thereof.”
This statement is unnecessary because it is redundant and adds no new information to the disclosure. The reproductions are understood to be computer renderings. Computer renderings are understood to have a "grayscale" quality and that the "grayscale" is not a color, but a result of the computer rendering. Further, color is not a patentable distinction and Examiner understands that the claim is not limited to a specific color. Therefore, this statement should be deleted.
Applicant is not required to correct the above-noted formal matters, but may wish to do so to place the application in better form.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a)&(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.
Specifically, the claim is indefinite and non-enabled because:
The exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of some of the surfaces (shaded in solid gray below) of the claimed design cannot be determined from the disclosure, making the overall appearance of the claim unclear. These features are not clearly shown elsewhere in the disclosure in enough detail to confirm their possible depth or probable dimension. Therefore, the appearance of these surfaces of the claimed design cannot be reproduced by one skilled in the art without resorting to conjecture. (See example below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
394
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this rejection by showing the claimed design completely and consistently. In doing, Applicant may amend the reproductions and specification in response to this Office action. In 1.1-1.7, Applicant may reduce the indefinite portions (identified above) to legible, equal-length broken lines, thereby removing the indefinite portions from the claim and identifying them as unclaimed portions of the claimed design.
For 2.1-2.7, Applicant may reduce the peripheral edges of the indefinite portions to broken line, and then may fill the area inside the broken lines with white, thereby removing the internal surfaces from the claim. (See example below.)
PNG
media_image3.png
167
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant is cautioned that any drawing amendments must show the claimed design, and its corresponding details, completely and consistently throughout all of the views.
The aforementioned solution suggests inserting broken lines into the reproductions. These broken lines would depict portions of the claimed design, and must be explained accordingly. Applicant may clarify the meaning of these broken lines in the reproductions by inserting a broken line statement in the specification, in a statement preceding the claim. Examiner suggests:
-- The broken lines in 1.1-1.7 depict portions of the base for earphones charging case that form no part of the claimed design. The broken lines and the shaded areas bounded by broken lines in 2.1-2.7 depict portions of the base for earphones charging case that form no part of the claimed design. --
Any corrected reproductions submitted in response to this Office action must be compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(d).
An amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. The figure (or figure number) of an amended view should not be labeled as amended. If a reproduction is canceled, that figure must be removed from the replacement sheet and the remaining figures and their related figure descriptions must be renumbered, as necessary.
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 Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Avoidance of New Matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121.
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).
Reply Reminder
Applicants are 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.
Applicant may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
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/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claimed design stands rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a)&(b).
The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Christensen whose telephone number is 571-272-9862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm. 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, Sandra Snapp can be reached on 571-272-8364. 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 patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/Amanda Christensen/Examiner, Art Unit 2912