DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application KR3020240044641 filed 11/06/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Reproductions in international design applications must comply with the requirements of Hague Agreement Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions. See 37 CFR 1.1026. The reproductions must be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication. See Hague Agreement Rule 9(2). Pursuant to Hague Agreement Rule 9(4), “[a] Contracting Party may however refuse the effects of the international registration on the ground that the reproductions contained in the international registration are not sufficient to disclose fully the industrial design.” See MPEP 2920.04(b).
(1) The claim is non-enabling and indefinite due to low quality reproductions, which renders the exact appearance of the claimed design impossible to determine. The lines are jagged and not sharp, pixilated, and arbitrarily thinned or blurred in parts making it difficult to clearly see the features of the claimed design. Additionally, lighter colored solid grey lines are shown and it is not apparent if these are intended to be shading lines or solid lines illustrating the contours of the design. Additionally, lines run together forming black regions which obscure the details of the features.
Portions of reproduction 1.7 have been outlined, enlarged and annotated below to show examples of the low quality line issues that are shown throughout the reproductions.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
740
1609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
722
1092
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
665
1336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner has outlined some of the non-enabled and indefinite features noticed during review of the Drawings above; however, the onus for providing a completely consistent drawing disclosure falls with the Applicant. While every attempt has been made to address all types of possible issues of line quality with reproduction 1.7, additional instances of these issues exist in reproductions 1.1-1.6. Applicant is reminded of the necessity to set forth a clear and consistent disclosure, and is encouraged to review the drawings carefully to address the quality of the lines, which may not have been specifically pointed out in the annotated reproductions of this Office Action.
(2) The claim is non-enabling and indefinite due to limited views of the features shown on the front, left and right sides of the forest fire monitoring lidar, which renders the exact appearance of the claimed design impossible to determine. Reproductions 1.1-1.3 have been annotated below to illustrate the features (enlarged and annotated in grey in reproduction 1.1 and encircled in reproductions 1.2-1.3) that are only shown in the respective reproductions. It is unclear whether these features are recessed or protruding from their adjacent surfaces; and if so, it is also unclear what depth or height the features are recessed or protruded to. The exact appearance of these features cannot be determined from the singular views of these features.
PNG
media_image5.png
604
665
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
685
1706
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To overcome this part (2) of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejection, Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and non-enabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) above.
The Examiner notes that matter, such as environmental structure or portions of the article, which is shown in a reproduction but for which protection is not sought may be indicated by a statement in the description and/or by means of dotted or broken lines or coloring in the reproduction. See MPEP 2920.04(b), 37 CFR 1.1026 and Hague Agreement Administrative Instruction 403.
In any attempt to overcome the rejection by preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
Accordingly, the claim stands refused, rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), as set forth above.
Correspondence with the USPTO
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.
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 TO/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.
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 “Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. Se MPEP §502.03, subsection II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
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 Patent Center (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center
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
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-8746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10 AM - 8:30 PM (EST).
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, IAN SIMMONS can be reached at (571) 272-2658. 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.
/J.Y./Design Examiner, Art Unit 2913
/IAN SIMMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913
Prosecution Insights