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 .
OFFICE ACTION
Applicant’s response, received on September 1, 2026, including replacement reproductions and amendments to the specification, is acknowledged. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) paragraphs in the office action dated April 2, 2026 is hereby maintained and made final.
The examiner has reviewed the amendment of September 1, 2026, however due to the introduction of new matter, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) paragraph is now set forth and is made final.
Action on Merits
35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection- (a) Paragraph
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the change in the replacement drawings are not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no clear support in the original disclosure to show the ends of the zig zag lines on the mask with a vertically curved line wrapped around the edge or any additional lines connected to the last zig zag line. Due to the poor image quality, the original reproductions are blurry and distorted at the ends of the zig zag lines and it is not clear as to the exact appearance of the ends of the zig zag lines. It is recommended applicant bring back the original appearance of the ends of the zig zag lines and place these lines in broken lines in views 1.3, 1.4,1.5, 1.7,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6, and 2.7. Please see annotated print alphabet letter A for view 2.7 as examples of the ends that should be placed in broken lines in views 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.3, 2.4,2.5,2.6, and 2.7. Correction is needed.
Annotated Print A:
View 2.7:
Original:
PNG
media_image1.png
773
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Replacement:
PNG
media_image2.png
967
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
All reproduction views should be made consistent in appearance between the original and replacement reproduction sheets. Correction is needed to address the above inconsistencies between the original and replacement reproductions.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended claim or amend the reproductions to add back the original appearance of the ends of the zig zags and place the ends in broken lines.
In the replacement drawings and specification no details should be added, deleted or changed unless antecedent basis is provided in the original drawing disclosure.
The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112,(a)). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
It is suggested that applicant may submit large, clear formal pen and ink drawings which show the details of the design clearly, accurately, and consistently in order that the examiner may be in a position to determine if the claim may be clarified without the addition of new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). In the alternative, applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines.
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. 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.
When preparing new drawings in compliance with the requirement therefor, care
must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated this ground of rejection under 35 USC 112, (a) paragraph 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 date of this final action.
Clarity, consistency and correction of the claim are required in order to obviate this rejection.
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) paragraph.
Action on the Merits
112 (a) and (b) Paragraphs
The claim is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because of the following reasons:
a). In the replacement views 1.7 and 2.7, the top horizontal circular stitch line runs across the vertical line instead of curving down and blending with the vertical line as depicted in the views of 1.1, 1.3,1.4,1.6,2.1,2.3,2.4, and 2.6. Please see annotated print alphabet letter B for views 1.7, 2.6, 2.7 as an example of this inconsistency in views 1.1, 1.3,1.4,1.6, 1.7,2.1,2.3,2.4, 2.6 and 2.7.
Correction is needed in views 1.7 and 2.7 to make the drawing views consistent.
Annotated Print B:
Views 1.7, 2.6, and 2.7:
PNG
media_image3.png
837
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
776
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
808
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
b). In view 2.2, the horizontal circular stich line touches the edge of the vertical line, but do not run downwards along side the vertical line as depicted in views 1.1, 1.3,1.4,1.6,2.1,2.3,2.4, and 2.6. Please see annotated print alphabet letter C for views 2.1 and 2.2 to illustrate this inconsistency in views 1.1, 1.3,1.4,1.6,2.1,2.2, 2.3,2.4, and 2.6. Correction is needed to make view 2.2 consistent with the other reproduction views.
Annotated Print C:
View 2.1 and 2.2:
PNG
media_image6.png
707
466
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
835
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In the replacement reproductions and specification no details should be added, deleted or changed unless antecedent basis is provided in the original drawing disclosure.
The necessity for good reproductions in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112,(a)). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application.
It is suggested that applicant may submit large, clear formal pen and ink reproductions which show the details of the design clearly, accurately, and consistently in order that the examiner may be in a position to determine if the claim may be clarified without the addition of new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121). In the alternative, applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken lines.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated this ground of rejection under 35 USC 112, (a) and (b) paragraph 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).
Clarity, consistency and correction of the claim are required in order to obviate this rejection.
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) paragraph.
The claimed design is patentable over the references cited. The art of record not relied upon is cited as cumulative art.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication 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.
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 Elizabeth.Oswecki@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 (M-F 9-5 EST) indicated in the last paragraph of this communication.
Email Communication
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 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:
[Symbol font/0xB7] Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
[Symbol font/0xB7] Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450
[Symbol font/0xB7] Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300)
[Symbol font/0xB7] Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) paragraph.
The claimed design is patentable over the references cited. The art of record not relied upon is cited as cumulative art.
Contact Information
For general information or administrative questions, please call 1-800-786-9199. For fee questions, please contact (571) 272-6400, for questions regarding petitions (571) 272-3282, and questions regarding publications (571) 272-4200.
To fax an official response to this action, or to fax any other formal communication you wish to be made of record in this application use 571-273-8300. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2579.
Patentability Contact:
Inquiries concerning PATENTABILITY/EXAMINATION of this application should be directed to Elizabeth Oswecki whose telephone number is 571-272-4335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 pm EST. Please note that, at this time, the examiner is prohibited from initiating or returning international telephone calls. If applicant wishes to communicate by telephone, the examiner may be reached by email, elizabeth.oswecki@uspto.gov to arrange a time for applicant to initiate a telephone interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Wilson can be reached on 571-272-7639. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
To schedule an interview, applicant may either call by telephone or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Regarding Status of an Application:
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the 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 andhttps://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.
Inventor Assistance Center:
The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC) provides patent information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners and experienced Primary Examiners who answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure.
Applicants should contact the IAC concerning payment of FEES, schedule of PRINTING of patents, RECEIPTS, and any other administrative issues. IAC is available M-F 8:30 am-5:00pm EST at 1-800-786-9199 or 703-308-4357 or for TTY 703-305-7785 for customer assistance.
/ELIZABETH J OSWECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912
Prosecution Insights