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 .
Election - Acknowledgement of Applicant's Response
The amendment received December 23, 2025 is hereby acknowledged, wherein Group II, consisting of original reproductions 2.1-2.17 was elected without traverse, and original reproductions 1.1-1.17, pertaining to non-elected Group I were cancelled, replacement drawings were submitted featuring 2.1-2.17, 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 Group I is hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
Objection to the Reproductions
The amended reproductions are objected to because they do not comply with formal requirements. MPEP 2902.02.
The reproductions are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design due to inconsistencies among the views. The curved line at the top of the design in 2.3-2.4 is shown in solid line, however these curved lines are shown in broken line elsewhere in the disclosure (as indicated in annotated 2.3 below). See 37 CFR 1.1026 and Rule 9 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement Reproductions
Replacement reproduction sheets must include all of the reproductions appearing on the prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. However, if the applicant cancels a reproduction, follow these steps:
Do not include the canceled reproduction on the replacement reproduction sheet.
Make appropriate changes to the reproduction descriptions for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show renumbering of the remaining reproduction.
If all the reproductions on a drawing 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 reproductions on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions.
Label the replacement reproductions in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner rejects the amended reproductions, 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).
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: 2.1-2.8 shows one component separately; 2.9-2.16 shows a second component separately; and 2.17 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 : Perspective view thereof;
2.8 : Another perspective view thereof;
2.9: Front view of a second watch strap component;
2.10 : Back view thereof;
2.11: Left view thereof;
2.12: Right view thereof;
2.13 : Top view thereof;
2.14 : Bottom view thereof;
2.15 : Perspective view thereof;
2.16 : Another perspective view thereof; and
2.17 : 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 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0223889 A1 to Rossell because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The appearance of Rossell is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243 (citing Titton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Cop., 728 F.2d 1423,1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Applicant may refer to MPEP 2152.06, which specifies the options of overcoming this rejection.
General Information
Applicant has claimed the design embodied in less than an entire article. The practice of claiming a design embodied in less than the entire article was confirmed in the decision of In re Zahn, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). This practice also opens to the examiner the liberty of relying upon the features of a reference embodied in less than the entire article. The examiner has done so in the following rejection.
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. D857,543 to Sirichai in view of U.S. Design Patent No. 1,021,665 to Ou.
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.
Sirichai teaches a watch strap with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in showing a watch strap comprising two rectangular strap components: a long strap component and a short strap component, with the two strap components being thin relative to the width of the strap, uniform in width, and the front and back surfaces being flat and planar. See the images below for reference.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed design differs from Sirichai in that the short strap component is shown with one end in a folded position, whereas the short strap of Sirichai is not shown folded, and that the ends of the straps of the claimed design are slightly rounded at three ends, whereas all ends of Sirichai are straight,
Ou teaches a watch strap with one end of a strap component shown in a folded position. Ou also teaches the ends of the straps being slightly rounded at three ends. See the image below for reference.
PNG
media_image4.png
171
599
media_image4.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 Sirichai by applying the folded end of Ou, and applying the strap ends being slightly rounded at three ends of Ou because Ou demonstrates that a watch strap having a folded end and slightly rounded ends is commonplace in the field of designing watch straps and would therefore have been an obvious design choice.
Further, the arrangement of the folded watch strap ends in both designs appears to be dictated by functional and/or mechanical considerations of attachment or fastening to a watch device or other strap features, and therefore any aesthetic appeal in the design of the folded strap ends is the result of their function as attachment or fastening locations.
Moreover, while Ou teaches the difference of the slightly rounded ends, the design feature of a watch strap having rounded ends is considered to be an obvious expedient in design, a simple change in shape that is well within the capacity of an ordinary design of skill in the art of watch bands. In re Villesvick, 97 USPQ 149 (1953), In re Peet, 101 USPQ 203 (1954). It is not believed that invention was involved in the production of the design over the prior art.
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. §102(a)(1) and 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