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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Republic of Korea Design Application No. KR30-2024-0017510, filed on 5/07/2024. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 35 USC § 119(b).
Objection - Reproductions
The reproductions are objected to as they are not of a quality that permits the claim to be clearly understood. The drawings are at such a large scale, that comparison of the reproductions for consistency becomes difficult. Reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. (See MPEP § 2909.02, Hague Rule 9(2)(a)). The dimensions of the representation of each industrial design appearing in a photograph or other graphic representation may not exceed 16 x 16 centimeters, and in respect of at least one representation of each design, one of those dimensions must be at least 3 centimeters. (See MPEP § 2909.02, Hague Administrative Instructions Section 402(b)). Furthermore, the reproductions accompanying an international application must be arranged in the orientation in which the applicant wishes them to be published. Where that application is filed on paper, a margin of at least 5 millimeters should be left around the representation of each industrial design. (See Hague Administrative Instructions Section 401 (d)). Corrected reproductions of the proper size and format are required in response to the office action.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
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.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following inconsistencies and unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for:
Inconsistencies
There are inconsistencies throughout the disclosure:
Figure 1.7 shows a bottom overlap feature with a line, and curves on the interior edge, where Figure 1.9 does not disclose this feature with the same details. See annotated drawings with arrows on the next page. It is therefore recommended that all such features be shown clearly and consistently throughout the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
2160
2133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1.1 shows a solid line that is present in the bottom grooves, whereas this line is not present in the same area on Figure 1.2. See annotated drawing on the next page.
PNG
media_image2.png
842
1081
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Unclear Parts
Figures 1.9 shows solid line features on the interior part of the handle, that are not shown consistently in Figures 1.7. See annotated drawings labeled “A”. Furthermore, the exact depth of the internal surface of the opening on the handle (highlighted with gray shading on the annotated drawings, and labeled “B” ) are further unclear in the absence of additional views to identify such. It is therefore recommended that applicant remove the shading from within these surfaces and convert to broken lines. See MPEP 1503.02, subsection II and III.
PNG
media_image3.png
1317
1431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: if applicant chooses to amend parts of the article to form no part of the claim by converting to broken lines, a statement to describe these broken lines must be added to the
specification, immediately following the figure descriptions and preceding the claim (see MPEP 1503.01, subsection II, MPEP 1503.02, subsection III and 37 CFR 1.154 (b) (5)). Examiner
provides the following example of a sufficient statement:
--The broken lines are shown for the purpose of illustrating parts of the article that form no part of the claim. –
Alternatively, applicant may cancel views if such does not have a negative impact on an overall understanding of the claimed design.
Because of the inconsistencies and insufficient information in the drawings provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. All inconsistencies should be remedied or otherwise satisfactorily explained, amended to form no part of the claim, or figures cancelled [if such does not negatively impact understanding of the remaining disclosure]. Inconsistency that cannot be either corrected or satisfactorily explained should be amended to form no part of the claim with lightweight broken lines. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter.
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 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 reproductions 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 reproductions. 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design.
REPLY GUIDELINES
Signature required
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this action 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).
Responding to official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only). See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
By mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450;
By facsimile via the USPTO official fax number (571-273-8300); or
By hand-carry to the USPTO Alexandria, Virginia, Customer Service Window.
For more information, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions.
Email communications
Replies to Office actions may not be submitted via email. 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. See MPEP 502.03.II for further information.
Discussions regarding the merits of an 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.
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. A registered practitioner "not of record" must 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 further information.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be contacted directly via email to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. When proposing an interview appointment, include proposed days and times for the proposed call, and confirm who will initiate the call. For the examiner’s work schedule, see Examiner Contact Information.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
The references cited but not applied are considered the most pertinent art related to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE M ACHEN ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1995. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 TO 5.
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, Calvin E Vansant can be reached at 571-272-5714. 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.M.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2937
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2919
Prosecution Insights