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 .
Applicant’s Response
The response on 09/11/2026 has been received and entered into the electronic case file. Counsel for the applicant’s comments and remarks have been carefully considered.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant has elected Group II (Design embodiment 2) for prosecution in the instant application. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/11/2026
Group I has been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the exact appearance of the claim cannot be determined due to lack of corroborating views, specifically depth and contour of various features. The examiner notes the following areas of indefinite and nonenabled features:
PNG
media_image1.png
507
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
*The highlighted and annotated features of 2.4 and the similar features shown in Fig. 2.1*
PNG
media_image2.png
488
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*The highlighted and annotated features of 2.3*
PNG
media_image3.png
240
1088
media_image3.png
Greyscale
*The highlighted and annotated recessed features of 2.2 and the similar features shown in Fig. 2.6*
The examiner notes that drawing clarity may be impacting the understanding of the claim; there are many instances of lines merging together to create additional thickness to the linework and blurriness. Applicant may consider providing the drawings in vector format instead of raster format for clearer linework in the drawings.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a continuing application.
Further, the lack of perspective view(s) hinders the understanding of the claim with regard to relative depths and contours. Though perspective views are extremely helpful in understanding the claim, the examiner cautions applicant that the addition of perspective views to the disclosure may likely result in a rejection for new matter. To overcome the rejection, Applicant may indicate that protection is not sought for those portions of the reproductions which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by amending the reproductions to color those portions or convert those portions to broken lines and by amending the specification to include a statement that the portions of the Case for Brushes shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design, provided such amendments do not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121).
A statement similar to the following should be used to described any amended broken lines to the drawing, inserted following the Description of Reproductions but before the claim statement:
--The broken lines of the drawing illustrate portions of the Case for Brushes that form no part of the claimed design. --
In any attempt to overcome the rejection by preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim stands rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), as set forth above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN A LAVERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-9387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
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, Michelle Wilson can be reached at (571) 272-7639. 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.
/CAITLIN A LAVERTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2912
