Detailed Action
Title Objection
The title is objectionable under 37 C.F.R. 1.153 because the title of the design must designate the particular article. Additionally, the title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally known and used by the public. See MPEP 1503.01(I). There are grammatical errors in the title that must be corrected.
“Guide For Hinge For Refrigerator Door” is missing words and without them the title is not clear. For the reasons above, the title, and each occurrence of the language of the title, must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted The examiner recommends: to read: This title has been used in the recommended broken line statement below.
-- Guide for a Hinge for a Refrigerator Door --
This title has been used in the recommended broken line statement below.
Claim Refusal- 35 USC 112
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) 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 regards as the invention.
Specifically, since dotted and broken lines may mean different things in different circumstances, it must be made clear in each design case what they mean, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. In re Blum, 153 USPQ 177 (C.C.P.A. 1967). Whether each kind of broken line is used to show boundaries, portions of the article, environmental structure, which form no part of the claim, or a design element such as stitching which does form a part of the claim, the use of different broken lines must be fully understood.
All broken lines are described as indication portions of the article. Figs. 1.8 and 1.9 show environment in broken lines and Fig. 1.9 shows a boundary in dash-long dash broken lines.
To overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), all broken lines must be fully described. This could be by amending the drawings to remove Figs. 1.8 and 1.9 or by amending the broken line statement to describe all broken lines.
If the broken line statement is amended, the examiner recommends the following:
-- The dash – dash broken lines in Figs. 1.1-1.7 are for illustrating portions of the Guide for Hinge For A Refrigerator Door and form no part of the claimed design. The additional dash – dash broken lines in Figs. 1.8 and 1.9 are for illustrating environmental structures and form no part of the claimed design. The dash – long dash broken lines in Fig. 1.9 illustrate the boundary of the environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design. --
Conclusion
The application is refused according to 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the appearance of the claimed design.
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any reply to this Office action 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.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Benjamin.Wannemacher@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP §502.03 II for further information.
Responses to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
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 Patent Center (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
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-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WANNEMACHER whose telephone number is (571)272-9568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST and at email address Benjamin.Wannemacher@uspto.gov.
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.
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO.
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.
/BENJAMIN D. WANNEMACHER/Examiner, Art Unit 2924