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 .
Restriction Not Required
This application discloses the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - 1.1-1.8
Embodiment 2 – 2.1-2.8
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Any rejection of one embodiment over prior art will apply equally to all other embodiments. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments.
Claim Rejection- 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 visual disclosure of the claimed design as originally filed is of such poor quality that its overall shape and appearance cannot be understood (MPEP § 1504.04), making the claim indefinite and non-enabling. The line quality is inconsistent making the character of the design indiscernible. The broken lines vary in size and spacing, additionally in other areas the broken lines merge together. This interferes with the understanding of the claim scope and makes it impossible to understand the exact shape and appearance of the claim. For example, the inconsistent size and space of broken lines show portions of line that appears to be solid whereas the portions of broken lines that merge together creating dark masses and solid line that the actual configuration of the design cannot be determined. This creates confusion, and makes it impossible to reconcile the details among the views. Applicant should show the lines clear, crisp and of consistent line weight throughout the views. See the examples included for reference, this does not include all of the images that require amendment:
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1176
1735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
383
1147
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Replacement Drawings
In any attempt to submit a new drawing, care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter, the same being prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121.
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 new 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).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD E YENCHESKY whose telephone number is (571)272-6580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, George Bugg can be reached on 571-272-2998. 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.
/R.E.Y./
Examiner, Art Unit 2911
/KEVIN K RUDZINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2911