DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement of Applicant's Response
The amendment received December 23, 2025 is hereby acknowledged, wherein Group II, consisting of original reproductions 2.1-2.13 was elected without traverse, and original reproductions 1.1-1.13, pertaining to non-elected Group I were cancelled, replacement drawings were submitted featuring 2.1-2.13, and the specification was revised. Group I is hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because the present description of the reproductions does not clearly and accurately describe the views (Hague Rule 7(5) (a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a) 11). Specifically, the different combinations of the watch components are not clearly identified in all views: 2.1-2.6 shows one component separately; 2.7-2..12 shows a second component separately; and 2.13 shows the two components combined in one view. The examiner suggests amending the specification as follows:
--2.1 : Front view of a first watch strap component;
2.2 : Back view thereof;
2.3 : Left view thereof;
2.4 : Right view thereof;
2.5 : Top view thereof;
2.6: Bottom view thereof;
2.7 : Front view of a second watch strap component;
2.8 : Back view thereof;
2.9: Left view thereof;
2.10: Right view thereof;
2.11 : Top view thereof;
2.12 : Bottom view thereof; and
2.13 : Perspective view the watch strap.
The broken lines depict portions of the watch strap that form no part of the claimed design.--
The specification should be amended to provide clear and accurate descriptions of all figures disclosed. To provide descriptions germane to the design shown (Hague Rule 7(5}(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II), and because the descriptions references a second watch strap not shown in the disclosure, the following statement should be removed:
[Reproductions 2.1 to 2.13 show a second watch strap including two watch strap components, one of the two components is shown in reproductions 2.1 to 2.6 and the other is shown in reproductions 2.7 to 2.12, reproduction 2.13 shows a combination of the two components;]
Applicant is not required to make the amendment suggested by the examiner above. However, applicant may wish to consider making such amendment to place the application in better form.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Design Patent No. D781,171 to Akana et al. in view of Taiwan Design Registration No. 226470-0001, or in the alternative, in view of U.S. Design Patent No. D879,644 to Deng.
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
Akana teaches a watch strap with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing a watch strap comprising two strap components, each strap having an attachment end and a fastening end, the straps being primarily rectangular and flat, with the fastening end of one strap being slightly rounded (the other end being attached to a buckle element). See the images below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed design differs from Akana in that:
The strap components of the claimed design have a uniform width, whereas the Akana strap components are slightly outwardly curved at the attachment end;
The fastening ends of both strap components are slightly rounded, whereas one fastening end of Akana terminates in a straight line and/or in a buckle element.
Lam teaches a watch strap with strap components having a uniform width, and the fastening ends of both strap components are slightly rounded. See the images below for reference.
PNG
media_image2.png
488
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Deng also teaches a watch strap having a uniform width where the fastening ends of both strap components are slightly rounded. See the images below for reference.
PNG
media_image3.png
435
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akana by applying the uniform width and the slightly rounded fastening ends of both strap components of Lam because Lam demonstrates that a watch strap having uniform width and slightly rounded fastening ends is commonplace in the field of designing watch straps and would therefore have been an obvious design choice.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akana by applying the slightly rounded ends of both strap components of Deng, because such a modification is no more than a simple substitution of one known design element for another (a rounded fastening end replacing a straight end or an end terminating in a buckle element). Moreover, such a substitution of one known design element for another known design element in the same field would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer.
While the watch strap of Deng is disclosed as having a uniform width, the attachment end of the strap is not claimed subject matter, however, the difference of the uniform width of the claimed design, as opposed to the slightly outwardly curved attachment end of Akana, is considered to be an obvious expedient in design, a simple change in contour that is well within the capacity of an ordinary designer of skill. Further, the feature of a watch strap having a uniform width is well known in the art, for example a watch strap with uniform width is shown by cited US Patents D535,205, D802,467, D815,972, D986,087, and D1,023,815.
It is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
The modifications outlined above would result in a design over which the claimed design would have no patentable distinction, any remaining differences being minor in their effect on the overall appearance of the design.
CONCLUSION
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Hauge Reply Reminder Regarding Patent Practioner of Record
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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. 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/apply
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
For complete details visit: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine Glennon whose telephone number is 571-270-1559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9AM-5PM ET.
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 at 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: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. For information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/Katherine Glennon/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2914