NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL
The response dated May 15, 2026 has been fully considered.
The amendments to the drawings and specification have not fully overcome the Refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Applicant amendment necessitated new grounds of objection and refusal presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Foreign Priority Objection
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 10/26/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB6321987 AND GB6321988 applications as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 C.F.R. 1.323. Applicant is advised that certified documents as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(f) are not permitted to be filed via EFS-WEB. (See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(2)).
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (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.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claim is not consistently or clearly disclosed. Specifically:
The following statement in the Specification should be deleted as it contradicts what is shown in the (colored) reproductions: “The colors shown on the claimed design form no part thereof”.
If the applicant is intending to claim the “illumination feature” shown in Figs. 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12, but the specific colors shown is not intended to be claimed, applicant should make that clear in the specification to avoid confusion to the exact scope of the claimed design. The design claim is limited to what is shown in the drawings, which in this case, are shown in color.
The examiner suggests a statement similar to: --The claim includes an illumination feature shown in Figs. 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12, however the specific color of the illumination forms no part thereof. --
The disclosure does not provide certainty as to the exact scope of the claimed design without resorting to conjecture because “Enlarged views” Figs. 2.7, 2.11, 2.12 do not have references associated with the views and the sections shown in the views are not clearly associated with any other views due to the changes in size and appearance. Therefore, it is unclear exactly which views they may be associated with, if any. Applicant may attempt to overcome this portion of the refusal by clearly associating in the drawings the enlarged views with each originating view. Alternatively, applicant may consider canceling Figs. 2.7, 2.11, 2.12. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) “The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight.”
The disclosure does not provide certainty to the scope of the claimed design because the top and bottom oval shaped elements are shown as claimed, solid lines, in some views and as broken line portions that form no part of the claim, in other views therefore the scope of the claim is not clearly and consistently disclosed. Specifically:
Fig. 1.6 shows the top element as claimed, solid lines, while Figs. 1.2 and 1.5 shows the same element as broken line portions that form no part of the claim. AND
Figs. 1.8, 1.9, 2.9, 2.10 shows the bottom element as claimed, solid lines, while Figs. 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 1.10, 2.3, 2.6 shows the element as broken line portions that form no part of the claim.
This portion of the rejection may be overcome by amending the drawings to provide certainty to the scope of the claimed design. Applicant may reduce the elements to broken lines clearly and consistently in all applicable views.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
327
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet of the reproductions should include all of the views appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one view is being amended. The view of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing view is to be canceled, the appropriate view must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining views 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 renumbered of the remaining views. Each drawing sheet of reproductions 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). Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) (see 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02). 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.
Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed as new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
Discussion of the Merits of the Case
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”, may be used for this purpose:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012
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 nick.buffa@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. 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.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to an official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including refusals, ex parte Quayle, 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 Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (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
/NJB/
Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/BAO-YEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2954
Prosecution Insights