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 .
Claim for Foreign Priority
The claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to the CN Patent Application No. 202430502556.5 filed on August 08, 2024 is acknowledged. Certified copies of the original CN Patent Application have been received by the Office.
General Information
Descriptions of the Reproductions:
An international design application designating the United States must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 and preferably include a brief description of each reproduction. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR § 1.1024, MPEP § 2920.04(a)II.
While the aforementioned requirement for a brief description has been fulfilled, the current descriptions are poorly formatted and not in a preferred form. In particular, they do not actually identify the subject matter being depicted and whether the views are shown in elevation or plan. For this reason, the Examiner would strongly suggest revising the descriptions for added clarity.
Applicant is not required to correct the aforementioned noted formal matters but may wish to do so to place the application in better form. To this end, the following format and language is suggested:
-- 1.1 is a top, rear and right side perspective view of a Motorcycle embodying my new design;
1.2 is a front elevation view thereof;
1.3 is a rear elevation view thereof;
1.4 is a right side elevation view thereof;
1.5 is a left side elevation view thereof;
1.6 is a top plan view thereof; and
1.7 is a bottom plan view thereof.--
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112
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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
There are concerns regarding the clarity and interpretability of the drawings. The issue lies in the ambiguity between solid lines denoting true edges and those representing surface contour (See annotated drawing figures below for references). This distinction is critical as it determines the overall appearance of the claimed design. Depending on the interpretation of these lines, two distinct designs could emerge, each with own implications. An unmistakable edge differs from contoured surface. The drawings in question appear to straddle between these interpretations, rendering the claim indefinite. To address this issue, the suggestion to incorporate line shading with irregular breaks instead of conventional wireframe modeling lines is proposed. This approach aims to provide clearer delineation between edges and contours.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
1350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, another issue identified in the drawings is the used of heavy, thick and pixelated lines in the depiction of the claimed design, which results in merged lines forming solid black masses. This merging also obscures certain details and diminishes the overall legibility of the claim. Therefore, alongside the proposed revisions to clarity the distinction between edges and contours, the examiner suggests for the refinement of line quality in the drawings, emphasizing the important of finer lines to prevent the loss of details of several interrelated components that define the aesthetic of a motorcycle (see annotated drawing for examples).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
626
1100
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112(a)).
Finally, there are visual disclosures of certain elements situated underneath the motorcycle called out by arrow in the annotated drawings, and especially reproduction 1.7 shows portions of the article through a single orthographic projection view, that in and of itself, is an inadequate visual presentation of how these portions are shaped and formed three dimensionally. When three-dimensional objects are represented solely in a single plan view, without additional views, it becomes difficult to determine the exact three-dimensional shape. In other words, without other perspectives that illustrated depth and shape, it is challenging to fully comprehend how the object look in which, their exact shape and appearance cannot be ascertained in the absence of corroborating views to fully enable the three-dimensional appearance of said elements (e.g., one or more attribute such depth, curvature, angle, placement, etc. are unknown).
PNG
media_image6.png
656
944
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It is therefore suggested that the areas/elements below that are highlighted and/or called out by arrows be converted to broken lines in every figure in which they appear, and the specification be amended to include a statement that the portions of the article shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design.
Extreme caution should be paid when correcting the reproductions as they must not contain new matter (35 USC 132; 37 CFR 1.121).
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 reproductions 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.
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).
Conclusion
This application stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (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 Giang.tran1@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.
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)
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
/G.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/DARLINGTON LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2914