DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on German Design Application No. 402024100472.4, filed on June 27, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the German Design Application No. 402024100472.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
In order for the USPTO to retrieve an electronic priority document through WIPO DAS, Applicant must file an Application Data Sheet ADS including the access code with a PTO/SB/38 Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application providing the Application No., filing date and access code.
Additionally, A request for a corrected filing receipt should also be submitted, with the “Access Code Provided” indication and the “Request to Retrieve” paragraph.
In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. Applicant is advised that certified documents as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(f) are not permitted to be filed via EFS-WEB. (See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(2)).
Remarks
The election of Group II (Reproduction 2.) without traverse, received February 6, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Accordingly, Group(s) I (Reproduction 1.) is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being directed to a nonelected design.
Reply Reminder for Restriction Requirements Concerning Figure Numbering
Renumbering of the drawing figures in any elected Group is not required. To ensure compliance with 37 CFR 1.1026 and Section 405 of the Administrative Instructions, and to maintain consistency with the published International Registration, the numbering of the drawing figures included in the elected Group should not be changed even if non-elected embodiments are cancelled.
In replying to this Refusal electing a Group for prosecution, applicant should also consider amending the application to cancel the drawing figures and remove the description corresponding to the nonelected Group(s), and to correct inventorship, as appropriate, resulting from such amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48. See MPEP 602.01(c)(1). Applicant should note that correcting inventorship after an Office action on the merits has been given or mailed in the application will require an additional fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48(c).
Objection to the Specification
The specification is objected to for the following reason(s):
The application contains at least one color drawing or color photograph. The specification must be amended to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section:
--The file of this patent contains at least one drawing/photograph executed in color. Copies of this patent with color drawing(s)/photograph(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.--
The specification must include a description of each figure. The descriptions that the applicant has provided is not sufficient to explain each view submitted in the reproduction disclosure. The descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, they must describe the views of the reproductions clearly and accurately. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II. For this reason, the description that reads:
Medal
Medal
Must be amended to include independent descriptions for Reproductions 1.1 and 2.1. The following language and format is suggested:
1.1 Front
2.1 Front
For consistency with the above cancellation of Reproduction 1.1 from the drawing disclosure, the description of Reproduction 1.1 must be deleted from the specification.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
With the above election of Group(s) II (Reproduction 2.1), Reproduction 1.1 must be cancelled from the drawings disclosure as being directed to a nonelected embodiment.
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).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the “German Design Patent No. 402024100472-0005”, published on November 15, 2024, 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 shape and appearance of the “German Design Patent No. 402024100472-0005” design is identical in all material respects to that of the claimed design, Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For anticipation to be found, the two designs must be substantially the same. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (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, supra.
“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, supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants may overcome this rejection by providing convincing evidence that the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and 1) the disclosure was made by the inventor, a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor; or 2) before such disclosure, the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the “Satoshi Silver – The Rise and Fall of Ross Ulbricht’s Silk Road”, available on “YouTube” since at least November 29, 2024, 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 shape and appearance of the “Satoshi Silver – The Rise and Fall of Ross Ulbricht’s Silk Road” design is identical in all material respects to that of the claimed design, Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For anticipation to be found, the two designs must be substantially the same. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (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, supra.
“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, supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
PNG
media_image2.png
696
1152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants may overcome this rejection by providing convincing evidence that the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and 1) the disclosure was made by the inventor, a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor; or 2) before such disclosure, the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.
Conclusion
The drawings and specification are objected to for the reasons set forth above.
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) for the reasons set forth above.
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal 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 NICOLE M LEECH whose telephone number is (571)272-1769. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sandra Snapp can be reached on (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. 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.
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 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: Nicole.Leech@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
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
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
/NICOLE M. LEECH/Examiner, Art Unit 2914