Detailed Action
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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because of the lack of clarity of the appearance and configuration of the claimed design. Because of the ambiguities in the disclosure, the scope of protection sought by the claim cannot be determined. Furthermore, such ambiguities in the disclosure do not enable a designer of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the shape and appearance of the design claimed without resorting to conjecture.
Specifically, there are features seen in reproductions 1.3-1.6 (highlighted in drawings below) that are not shown in any other views in enough detail to confirm their three-dimensional appearance. Since they are not disclosed in the perspective view, it is unclear what is protruding, what is receding or what could be see through to the other side.
Consider using broken lines to disclaim these features. See annotated drawings below for details.
PNG
media_image1.png
1545
1714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If broken lines are used, a broken line statement similar to the following must be added to the specification to define their purpose; i.e. environment, boundary, stitching, folds lines, etc. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967) and MPEP § 1503.02 (III).
-- The broken lines illustrate portions of the VENTILATION PANEL FOR INDOOR USE that form no part of the claimed design. --
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected reproductions are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 examiner does not accept the changes, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The corrected drawings must not contain new matter. 35 U.S.C. 132; 37 CFR 1.121(d).
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 US PTO. 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 prose 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 Adedoyin.Odeyale@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. 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 Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-onIine/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
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-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Adedoyin Taiwo Odeyale at 571-272-8472.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, video conference (using Microsoft Teams meeting initiated by USPTO), and in-person. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Odeyale or use USPTO AIR (Automated Interview Request, http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, you may contact Supervisory Patent Examiner Jae Liang at 571-270-0229. The fax number is 571-273-8300.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b). The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
/A.T.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/JAE LIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2932