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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election Acknowledgement
In the response submitted on January 5, 2026, applicant elects Group I (1.1-1.10) without traverse. Accordingly, Group II (2.1-2.10), as well as their corresponding figure descriptions, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
Objection to Title
The title is inconsistently listed as “Base station for measuring instruments except for measuring time” in the WIPO International Registration Publication Data, as 1. Base station for measuring instruments [except for measuring time] in Design No./Product(s), and as “base station and a charge amplifier” in the claim. The title of a design being claimed must correspond to the name of the article in which the design is embodied or applied to. (MPEP 1503.01(1)). For consistency, accuracy and clarity, it is suggested that title be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted, to read:
-- BASE STATION FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENT--
Objection to Specification
I-With the election of the Group I and the cancelation of the Group II (2.1-2.10) drawing views, the Design No./Products: No. “ 2. 2. Charge amplifier for measuring instruments [except for measuring time]” should be cancelled.
II- With the election of the Group I and the cancelation of the Group II (2.1-2.10) drawing views the description of Reproduction 2.1- 2.10 should be canceled from the specification.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, 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 (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the disclosure is unclear, as the exact shape and appearance of the design cannot be determined due to the reasons set forth below:
The exact shape and appearance of the body of the claimed design are inconsistent between all the views of the claimed design. Reproductions 1.7-1.10 show the body to have secondary tapered edges with curved angels(see Annotated Drawing Letter A.) However, in reproductions 1.1-1.6 the rectangular body do not have the secondary tapered edges with curved angels, therefore, causing confusion and inconsistency between different views of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image1.png
1267
1557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The exact shape and appearance of the body of the claimed design are inconsistent between all the views of the claimed design. Reproductions 1.1 and 1.2 show the outer right and left edges of the front view to be slightly depressed, and the outer top and bottom edge to be straight (see Annotated Drawing Letter B.) However, in reproductions 1.7 -1.10 the outer right and left edges of the front view to completely straight without any depression , the center of the outer top and bottom edge to be slightly bulbous, therefore, causing confusion and inconsistency between different views of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image2.png
1357
1505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is indefinite and non-enabled. As the exact shape and depth of the heighted outer circular feature, two inner concentric circular features, and eight small circular elements inside them in the center of the back side view are unclear (See Annotated Drawing Letter C.) It cannot be fully understood whether these surfaces and features are on the same plane as the understood outermost surface surrounding them or if they are depressed to one or various depths within the claimed design’s body. The lack of shading and different placement of these features and elements imply that they are in different planes as the outermost surface surrounding them, however, the exact three-dimensional shape and depth of these features and elements are not clearly disclosed. Without, for example, an alternative perspective or cross-sectional view, there is no way to understand the exact shape and depth of these features.
PNG
media_image3.png
770
957
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For the above-noted reasons, the exact shape, appearance, and depth of the noted features are open to multiple interpretations and cannot be fully understood without resorting to conjecture. The applicant is advised that due to the limited views included in the disclosure, the clarification of the shape and contours of theses surfaces may likely constitute new matter.
PNG
media_image4.png
5
8
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), it is suggested that the applicant:
Attempt to consistently show the shape of the BASE STATION FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENT between all the views of the claimed design.
Attempt to clarify (without the introduction of new matter) or altogether disclaim (using broken lines) the indefinite and non-enabled circular features seen in reproduction 1.6
If Applicant chooses to disclaim any features by converting them to broken lines in the drawing disclosure, a statement would also need to be inserted into the specification noting that the broken lines are shown for the purpose of illustrating portions of the BASE STATION FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENT and forms no part of the claimed design.
Applicant is advised that in accordance with Hague Administrative Instruction Section 403, matter excluded from the claim may be indicated:
(a)(i) in the description referred to in Rule 7(5)(a) and/or;
(a)(ii) by means of dotted/broken lines, or coloring.
Per MPEP 2920.05(c), for clarity of the disclosure, Applicant is encouraged not to simply rely on a description to indicate matter shown in a reproduction for which protection is not sought, but rather to also identify the matter for which protection is not sought through the use of broken or dotted lines or coloring.
Information Regarding Drawing Submission
Corrected reproductions sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement reproductions sheet should include all of the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is being amended. The reproduction number of an amended reproduction should not be labeled as amended. If a reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproductions must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining reproductions must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a drawing 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 reproductions on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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 required corrective action in the next Office action.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any amendment filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312 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.
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
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b), as outlined above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara S Sahneh whose telephone number is (571)272-9652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 8:30 AM-4:00 PM (MT).
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, Justin M. Jonaitis can be reached at (571) 270-5150. 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.
/SARA S SAHNEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2924