DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Remarks
The Examiner has reviewed the amendment filed May 18, 2026.
The Examiner has withdrawn part “B” of the non-final rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) because the Applicant has provided a rendering in their argument that shows the handbag having the appearance of a non-beveled corner in Rep. 1.8 due to the angle of the drawing. The Examiner now understands the corner of the handbag to be consistent in the original reproductions provided on March 21, 2025. The Examiner thanks the Applicant for providing this clarification.
Applicant’s argument filed on May 18, 2026 stating that the slope of the flaps are shown consistently has not overcome the previously issued part “A” of the non-final rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b), and necessitates a final rejection.
While the Examiner understands the center of the flap to be the lowest point as explained in the Applicant’s argument, the argument does not address why the flap is sloping downwards in Reps. 1.6, 1.7, 1.18 and 1.19, but not in the same views of the handbag when it is shown in the same configuration. For example, the first configuration of the handbag is shown in Reps. 1.1-1.7, so the flaps on the bag should be shown in the same position in this configuration. Rep. 1.6 and 1.7 are sloped downward, but Reps. 1.1-1.3 show the flaps to be flat, which makes this portion of the handbag appear inconsistent in this configuration.
While the Examiner understands the Applicant’s argument that the top flaps of the handbag have the ability to change from a “flat” to “sloped” appearance, the specification and drawings do not make this feature of the flap in the configurations understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art and the drawings show the flap differently in Reps. 1.6, 1.7, 1.18 and 1.19 when compared to the other reproductions that show the flap.
The Examiner can see in the photographs provided by the Applicant in their argument that the flap of the handbag has the ability to be flat or sloping, but the Reproduction descriptions and detailed description provided on March 21, 2025 do not explain the flaps to be changing within each configuration when comparing the drawings of the handbag throughout the three configurations. The flaps in Reps. 1.6, 1.7, 1.18 and 1.19 remain inconsistent when compared to the other drawings that show the flaps.
The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b) should be withdrawn.
The amendment has not overcome the rejection of record and is hereby repeated and made final.
A final rejection of the claim is set forth below.
FINAL Claim Rejection - 35 USC §112(a)&(b)
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b), as the claimed invention is not described in such a full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
A.) The slope of the flaps are inconsistent in reproductions 1.6, 1.7, 1.18 and 1.19 when compared to the other reproductions. Reproductions 1.6, 1.7, 1.18 and 1.19 show the flaps with a downward slope.
PNG
media_image1.png
667
1737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is inconsistent with reproductions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.9, 1.10, 1.16, and 1.17 that show the flaps not sloping downward.
PNG
media_image2.png
1192
1606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests for the Applicant to amend the flaps shown on the Handbag for consistency throughout the reproductions.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Any amended replacement reproduction 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 or reproduction number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing reproduction is to be canceled, the appropriate reproduction must be removed from the replacement reproduction 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 reproduction sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a sheet are canceled, a replacement reproduction sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a)&(b). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design.
Hague – Reply Reminder for all Refusals
Applicants 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).
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, Notice of Allowances, or Notice of Abandonments, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center (Registered eFilers only):
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration.
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) Do Not Fax Formal Drawings.
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window.
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Contact and Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M GEBHART whose telephone number is (571)272-9690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 am to 6 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Simmons, can be reached at telephone number 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.
/J.M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2913 /IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Prosecution Insights