DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Foreign Priority
Priority Documents are not contained in the application at this time. The applicant must submit the original certified copy of the claimed foreign application JP2024-003876 D, filed 02/27/2024, as required per 37 CFR 1.55, in order to meet the requirements of 35 USC 119. Please see “Document Indicating Retrieval Request was Unsuccessful” document, mailed by the office on 07/28/2025.
In general, an attempt to retrieve an eligible foreign application will be made by the USPTO when the application is docketed to an examiner. If the electronic copy of the priority document is not contained in the application at the time of the first Office action the applicant should verify that the priority claim (country, application number and filing date) indicated on the filing receipt is accurate and that the filing receipt includes the “Request to Retrieve” text.
If the filing receipt reflects the accurate foreign priority claim and WIPO DAS access code, if applicable, the applicant should contact the Patents Electronic Business Center (EBC) and request that the matter be escalated to determine why the priority document is not yet in the file.
EBC Customer Support Center
1-866-217-9197 (toll-free)
751-272-4100 (local)
M-F 6AM-Midnight (Eastern Time)
Email: PDX@uspto.gov
Note that the applicant continues to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued. For more information, please visit: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-dociment-exchange-pdx
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)
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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the claimed design cannot be clearly understood from the combination of reproductions and written descriptions provided. The claimed subject matter is presented inconsistently and cannot be understood for the following reasons:
Specifically, REP. 1.1 shows the surface on the upper left side of the footrest having a diagonal seam line, connecting directly to the adjacent vertical seam line. Conversely, REP. 1.2 shows both upper sides of the footrest having an additional layer, underneath the solid, diagonal line, between the outer and inner surfaces of the footrest. Therefore, the exact appearance of the claim cannot be determined. These features MUST be shown consistently in all drawings provided. See annotated drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
829
1730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, REP. 1.1 shows a curved edge feature, on the upper right side of the footrest. Conversely, REP. 1.2 shows a cylindrical feature in the same area. Therefore, the exact appearance of the claim remains impossible to determine. These features MUST be shown consistently in all drawings provided. See drawings:
PNG
media_image2.png
982
1994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, REP. 1.1 shows the outer edges of the panels forming the chair frame demarcated with single, solid lines. Conversely, REP. 1.2 shows the edges of the panels having a noticeable thickness, and multiple layers, demarcated with multiple parallel, solid lines shown on the panel edges. Therefore, the exact appearance of the claim remains impossible to determine. The examiner emphasizes, these features MUST be shown consistently in ALL drawings provided. See drawings:
PNG
media_image3.png
906
1250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the claim is indefinite and nonenabling because some aspects of the claim cannot be fully understood from the views provided. One cannot determine the depth and arrangement of structures illustrated in REPS. 1.2, 1.3, and 1.7 without resorting to conjecture. These structures include (a) four horizontal, solid lines, (b) three long, vertical, solid lines, (c) a large curved feature demarcated with two curved, parallel lines, (d) two long, rectangular features, (e) two small, horizontal, rectangular features, (f) a three section, vertically oriented, large rectangular feature, and (g) a five section, vertically oriented, rectangular feature, all shown in REP. 1.7. Additional nonenabled structures include (h) a large rectangular feature shown in REP. 1.3, (i) four thin features, each demarcated with two parallel, solid lines, shown in REP. 1.2, and (j) two vertically oriented, rectangular features shown in REP. 1.2. This confuses the scope because the extent of what’s being claimed is unclear, and prevents the article from being enabled. See drawings:
PNG
media_image4.png
796
1152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
288
827
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
694
977
media_image6.png
Greyscale
These aforementioned features are shown with inadequate surface contour shading. Because of the inadequate disclosure, these features of the claimed design are in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled.
Additionally, showing features in one elevation view or one plan view, makes it impossible to distinguish the differences between the orientation and curvatures of planes, which may create a variety of different depths within the design. Specifically, showing a three-dimensional article with a single two-dimensional drawing is insufficient in demonstrating the exact shape and depth of a design. “With articles which are unsymmetrical and which present different appearances from different points of view, one figure from a single point, however well executed, is not sufficient for complete disclosure”, Ex parte Salsbury, 38 USPQ 149 (ComrPats 1938). Therefore, for one of ordinary skill to understand how the present design gives form to a three-dimensional article, one must resort to conjecture.
Since the enablement of the design would likely introduce new matter, the examiner recommends removing the areas considered indefinite and nonenabling from the claim by converting the object lines into broken lines. The examiner emphasizes, if features (a-i) are converted to broken lines as suggested, these features MUST be shown consistently in broken lines wherever they appear in ALL reproductions provided.
Corrected reproduction sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are suggested in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all 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 reproduction should not be labeled as amended. If a reproduction 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
If the applicant amends the reproduction disclosure to include broken lines as suggested above, a statement must be included in the specification, following the figure descriptions, to describe fully and clearly what the broken lines represent in the representations (MPEP 1503.02, III). The examiner recommends the following acceptable statement:
-- The broken lines shown in the representations are portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design. --
Furthermore, to overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to amend the disclosure to fully and consistently show the elements considered to be nonenabling by clarifying the appearance of the claimed design. Applicant may do so by providing a reproduction disclosure showing all features of the claim having a consistent appearance in all reproductions provided, to present an understandable claimed design.
Although the examiner has attempted to identify as many instances as possible wherein the lines are incomplete and/or inconsistent, it is noted that these issues are present throughout all of the figures in the disclosure. The onus is on the applicant to show every aspect of the claimed design accurately and consistently throughout views. All features of the claimed design must be shown consistently in the representations in order for the rejection to be properly addressed.
If preparing new or replacement reproductions, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
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 PAUL BOHANNON whose telephone number is 408-918-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 AM - 7 PM, CST. 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. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jennifer Rempfer, can be reached at 571-270-0248. 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.
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: Catherine.ho@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, 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
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
• Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
• Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in Public PAIR, which may be viewed by the applicant at:
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
/PAUL D BOHANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2932
Prosecution Insights