DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The applicant argument, amendment, and revised reproductions received 09 March 2026 are acknowledged. Applicant’s amendment and revised reproductions have been carefully considered, and while the objections and issues of the previous rejection have been overcome due to applicant’s amendments, applicant has failed to comply with the description requirement in that the new drawing views include information and features that do not have basis within the originally filed documents and drawings. As such, the previous rejection has been overcome and is hereby withdrawn, but a final rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) is made as follows.
Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
In view of the new drawing submitted on 13 April 2017, the claim is now FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), [pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph], as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the new figure views introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed, In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981); In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Applicant is advised that there is no support in the original disclosure to allow one skilled in the art to extract the information provided in the new reproductions views that show the repeating parallel features on the top front side of the Combination Boot Jack and Tray flush with the surrounding surface. Please see the annotated reproductions below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1548
2124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1503
2070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that the original figure views contain the newly flush configuration, and the information it conveys was disclosed in the original application; or remove any new matter that was introduced as a response to overcome the previous rejection.
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).
Corrected drawing sheets are suggested in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing 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 drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” 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 suggested corrective action in the next Office action.
Hague – Reply Reminder
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 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.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communications 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
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 of actions only by: • Online via 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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions.
Summation
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON H SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1194. 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, Michelle E Wilson can be reached at 571-272-7639. 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.
/S.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2912
/T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912