FINAL NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL
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 .
Reconsideration
The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received on May 15, 2026. However, the rejection of record under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) has not been overcome and are set forth again and made final.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) Claim Rejection
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 there are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically the bottom step differs throughout the views. Particularly, Rep(s). 1.1 – 1.4, appear to show a rimed flanged with a hard edge and a separate bottom surface, whereas Rep(s). 1.6 – 1.7 appear to show a monolith stepped flanged edge and bottom. See annotated examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
975
1135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
445
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically the identified bottom edges shown in broken lines Rep. 1.5 cannot be clearly enabled nor be determined from the views in which they appear. Particularly it cannot be determined which indefinite broken line edge in Rep. 1.5 correlates to the solid edge line depicting the identified step in Rep(s). 1.2, 1.6, and 1.7, if any. And if so, the scope of the claim cannot be determined nor understood, as the broken line in Rep. 1.5 were removed from the claim and appear to be shorter than what is shown in the remaining views. Furthermore, it appears that some impermissible broken lines are crossing through the apparent stepped and segmented bottom as if they were hidden planes and surface seen through opaque materials. Thus, the exact shape, depth, extent, finish and placement of the feature relative to the adjacent surfaces cannot be understood, since it is open to numerous interpretations. See annotated example below.
To overcome this rejection without the introduction of new matter, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently.
PNG
media_image3.png
834
1146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
493
1036
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
940
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The identified bottom surfaces shown in Rep. 1.5 cannot be clearly enabled nor be determined from the views in which they appear. Specifically, it cannot be determined if these surfaces are coplanar, or if certain areas are recessed. And if they are recessed, how far recessed they are cannot be determined. Thus, the exact shape, depth, extent, finish and placement of the feature relative to the adjacent surfaces cannot be understood, since it is open to numerous interpretations. See annotated example below.
To overcome this rejection without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove
from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and non-enabling by converting them to broken lines and amending the Specification to include a statement that indicates those portions form no part of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image6.png
1037
741
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies and inadequate disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
Replacement Drawings
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 figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures 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 figures. If all the figures 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 figures 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.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure.
Avoidance of New Matter
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).
Final Action
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Reply Reminder to all Refusals
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).
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.
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:
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
Accordingly, the claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JOHN SUAREZ LA ROSA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Ian Simmons can be reached on (571) 272-2658. 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.
/CJSLR/Examiner, Art Unit 2913
/BAO-YEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2954
Prosecution Insights