General Information
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election
This application has been examined. Note is made of the election by applicant of the design shown in Group II (views 2.1 - 2.8). Accordingly, the design shown in Group I stands withdrawn from further prosecution before the Examiner, the election having been made without traverse in the paper received 06/04/2026. The amendment cancelling views 1.1 - 1.6 and the descriptions thereof is acknowledged.
Specification
The description [The industrial design consists … claimed is marked in solid lines] in the paragraph in the section labeled ‘Description of the Reproductions’ is extraneous information describing matters unrelated to understand the appearance of the claimed design and adds no new information to the understanding of the claimed design. Any description of the design in the specification other than a brief description of the drawing is generally not necessary, since as a general rule, the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description. See In re Freeman, 23 App. D.C. 226 (App. D.C. 1904).
The above description should be deleted in its entirety. See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a) ll.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112
The claim is rejected 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 exact appearance of the design cannot be determined. In particular:
The shape and configuration of the table cannot be clearly understood. The exploded view of 2.2 shows the base much shorter than that shown in view 2.1.
The exploded view of 2.2 shows the tabletop much shorter than that shown in view 2.1.
[AltContent: arrow]
The length of the base in the left side view of 2.6 is shown shorter than that show in the front, rear and right side views of 2.3, 2.5 and 2.7.
The shape of the tabletop in the top view of 2.8 differs than that shown in the bottom view of 2.4.
PNG
media_image9.png
723
634
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2.8)]
PNG
media_image11.png
692
679
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2.4)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
This portion of the rejection may be overcome by consistently showing the shape and configuration of all of the features in all of the views.
The appearance of the table cannot be clearly understood. Applicant describes the broken lines as portions of the table that form no part of the claimed design. However, they are shown inconsistently. Furthermore, in cannot be determined whether the table and base are made of a transparent material or a solid material.
This portion of the rejection may be overcome by consistently showing all of the features in either broken or solid lines. However, if the table is transparent applicant should convert the broken lines to solid lines for clarity. If the table is made of a solid material the broken lines and the description thereof must be removed. Broken lines may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces which cannot be seen through opaque materials. See MPEP 2920.04(b), MPEP 1503.02 III.
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 when preparing new reproductions. Each 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b).
The claim is patentable over the cited prior art; however, a final determination of patentability will be made upon resolution of the above rejection.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY ANN CALABRESE whose telephone number is (571)272-8704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm, Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Barbara Fox, may be reached at (571) 272-4456. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
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.
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 mary.calabrese@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.
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:
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
See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
/MARY ANN CALABRESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2931
07/08/2026
Prosecution Insights