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 Restriction Election
Acknowledgement is here made of applicant’s election of Group I, Embodiments 1 and 6 (Figures 1.1-1.2 and 6.1-6.2) in response to the requirement for restriction of October 14th, 2025. Groups II and III, Embodiment 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Figures 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2) have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner (37 CFR 1.142(b)), as being for a nonelected design. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 12th, 2025.
Objection – Specification
Descriptions
The reproductions lack supporting descriptions. Each embodiment has been designated with a single number (1 and 6), wherein only the title of the article has been provided for a description. When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference numerals. See 37 CFR 1.74.
Figures 1.1 and 6.1 appear to be front top perspective views, and Figures 1.2 and 6.2 appear to be rear top perspective views. Accordingly, descriptions should reflect this (see MPEP 1503.01, subsection II), wherein each reproduction should be provided with its own description. Examiner provides the following examples of appropriate descriptions for the reproductions:
--1.1 Front top perspective --
--1.2 Rear top perspective --
--6.1 Front top perspective --
--6.2 Rear top perspective --
Claim Statement
The claim statement is objected to as it does not conform to the requirements for the claim as set forth in 37 CFR 1.153. Specifically, the claim statement includes the following information:
“The ornamental design for bracket for box lids, in particular pizza boxes as shown and described: the bracket for box lids, in particular pizza box, characterized by the fact that in its unfolded state it has the shape of an elongated strip, the side edges of which are provided with hooks, the strip being divided into three parts, between which there are grooves enabling these parts to be folded, with recesses on the lower and upper edge of each part of the strip, the support in its folded state being in the shape of a triangle when viewed from above and the side edges of the strip being connected to each other by the hooks as shown and described.”
To conform to the requirements for the claim as set forth in 37 CFR 1.153, the claim statement should be amended as follows:
--Claim: The ornamental design for a Bracket for Box Lid, as shown. --
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
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 due to the following unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for.
Limited Views
The exact shape and appearance of the article is unclear due to the limited views, wherein only perspective views of the front and rear have been provided. For example, it is unclear if all of the high points are level with one another, and further if all the recesses are flush with one another, or if variations in configuration of these features exist from section to section. Further, though the specification indicates that the article has the shape of a triangle when viewed from above and further is divided into three parts that may be folded by way of grooves, there is no indication that these sections are of the same length, or if there are variations in dimensions of each section. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient views and description of the claimed design, Examiner is unable to make a clear assessment of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture. See arrows in annotated drawings below for examples of unclear parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
1127
1147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that Applicant may attempt to clarify the complete appearance of the article, however applicant is cautioned that the introduction of additional views or descriptions clarifying the above would likely introduce new matter, which is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Correction and/or clarification are suggested to show all such details clearly and consistently throughout all views. If clarifying statements are made regarding shape and position of claimed elements, applicant should cite the antecedent basis for the clarification such that the clarifying description does not introduce prohibited new matter.
Because of the 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. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter.
It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. 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).
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 reproduction 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 reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or the 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, 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.
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 mace 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 Interviews
A telephonic 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 :/ywww.uspto.gov/‘patent,'forms/forms-patent-applications-fiied-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
catherine.posthauer@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 consider 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/#!/
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/paterits-niaintaining-pateni/responcirig-office-actlons
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 Examiner Catherine Posthauer whose telephone Number is (571) 270-0233. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday EST.
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, George Ulsh, can be reached on 571-270-1433. The
fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/. Status information for published applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished
applications are available through Patent Center only. For more information about the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922