DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election
In the paper received June 12, 2026, applicant elects without traverse the design shown in Group I (Figs. 1.1-1.7). Accordingly, the designs shown in Groups II-IV stand withdrawn from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b).
The applicant's request to cancel Figs. 2.1-4.7 in the response dated June 12, 2026, is acknowledged. Figs. 1.1-1.7 remain in the application and will be considered on the merits.
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is 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 disclosure does not provide certainty as to the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the surfaces and elements shown either pointed to or shaded below without resorting to conjecture.
PNG
media_image1.png
785
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
819
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
831
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
764
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
713
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
869
871
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
579
796
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
364
860
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this portion of the refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for the elements indicated above by amending all corresponding reproductions to convert the elements to broken lines clearly and consistently, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See 37 C.F.R. 1.1026 and Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403.
If applicant chooses to do so, the surface contour shading must be removed as well. An appropriate statement must be added to the specification following the figure descriptions, but prior to the claim, to clearly describe the portions of the claim that form no part thereof. For example, if applicant converts the unclaimed portions to broken lines, the following statement would be acceptable:
--The broken lines are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the stage lighting that form no part of the claimed design.--
Fig. 1.3 shows an element, pointed to below, whereas Figs. 1.1 and 1.4-1.6 show no element.
PNG
media_image9.png
554
1394
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this portion of the refusal by amending the drawings to clearly and consistently depict the claimed design.
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 U.S.C. 132 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions.
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 brett.melliar@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 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)
o 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
Conclusion
The claim is refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth above.
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Number Search” button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to W. BRETT MELLIAR whose telephone number is (571) 272-6130. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 7am to 5pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Lakiya G Rogers, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7145. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://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.
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).
/WILLIAM B MELLIAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2934
Prosecution Insights