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
Amendment Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of the response to Restriction/Election submitted by the applicant on February 4, 2026, including Applicant’s Arguments and an election and amendments to Specification.
Election Acknowledgement
In the response submitted on February 4, 2026, applicant elects Group I (1.1 – 1.8) without traverse. Accordingly, Groups II - III (2.1-2.8,3.1-3.8), as well as their corresponding figure descriptions, are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
In view of the fact that this application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of Groups II (2.1-2.8) and III (3.1-3.8) directed to a design or designs nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on February 4, 2026, and without the right to petition, such Groups have been cancelled, along with their corresponding figure descriptions.
Foreign Priority Acknowledgement: No Certified Copy Submitted
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on July 30, 2024.
It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the United Kingdom applications as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
For proper submission of a certified copy, Applicant is advised of the following:
A copy of the certificate of registration is not acceptable as a certified copy.
A certified copy of a foreign patent application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119 is NOT permitted to be filed using USPTO Patent Electronic System (formerly EFS Web/Private Pair), as it is improper (See Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (23OCTOBER19); MPEP 502.05(I)(B)(2)(7)).
Applicant may submit a paper certified copy of the foreign application; OR, if the foreign priority is with a participating office, Applicant may request retrieval of the certified document via the WIPO DAS Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) program (Further information available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx).
Drawing Objection
With the canceling of the Groups II and III (Reproduction Nos. 2.1-2.8 and 3.1-3.8) drawing views, the non-elected drawing views (Nos. 2.1-2.8 and 3.1-3.8) have been cancelled from the drawing.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) 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 claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by UK Registration No. 6381778 (Registration date July 30, 2024) by Gill Corporate Limited (Gill)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.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
1683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The appearance of Gill 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.
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 F3d.1308 (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 supra (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d at 1444(Fed. Cir.1984).
Prior art “Grace Period” exceptions under 35 USC 102(b)
One or more of the prior art designs discussed above was published less than one year before the filing date of the present application, and therefore an exception under 35 USC 102(b) may apply. In addition to persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable over the prior art or amending the claims to overcome the prior art rejection, such a rejection might be overcome by:
(1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the design in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A);
(2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 USC 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 USC 112(a);
(3) perfecting a benefit claim under 35 USC 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 USC 112(a); or
(4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(B).
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For more information see MPEP 2152.06.
Conclusions
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as outlined above.
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
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