NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of the applicant’s response received 08/28/2026. It is the examiner’s position that the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) has not been overcome by the applicant’s amendment. However, upon further review, new grounds for rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) is set forth below. Because this is a new ground for rejection, this action is not made final.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following reasons:
The applicant has canceled reproductions 1.1-1.8 (the redundant images) from the disclosure and re-labeled reproductions 1.9-1.16 as 1.1-1.8. However, a replacement specification has not been provided with new reproduction descriptions and the removal of the statements regarding the canceled reproductions.
35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
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 claimed invention is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
Reproduction 1.4 is missing the indicated solid lines seen above and below the crank element on the article (indicated below) which are seen on the article in the other reproductions. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.4. Reproduction 1.4 shows the top of the crank element to be the same width as the cylindrical element on the pole (indicated below) while reproduction 1.6 shows the cylindrical element wider than the crank element. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image2.png
391
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.6 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.4. Reproduction 1.4 shows the indicated vertical portion of the crank element to taper down to a smaller width (indicated below) while reproduction 1.6 shows the same vertical portion all the same width. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
391
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.7. The size/length of the umbrella pole in reproduction 1.8 does not coincide with reproduction 1.7, the view it is taken from. The enlarged view must be consistent with the view it is taken from. Consistency is required.
PNG
media_image4.png
710
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8 is inconsistent with reproduction 1.7. Reproduction 1.8 shows the top of the umbrella pole cut off (indicated below) while reproduction 1.7 shows the top of the umbrella pole stopping at a boundary line. For consistency and to avoid confusion, reproduction 1.8 should be amended to add the boundary box around the enlarged section and be amended to be a dash-dot-dash line so it is not mistaken for claimed material.
PNG
media_image5.png
315
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.7 and 1.8 should be amended as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
940
1932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
790
871
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies, and insufficient information in the reproductions provided, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. In order to overcome this refusal, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. It must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When 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).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CZYZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Simmons can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN J CZYZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2913
