NOTIFICATION OF REFUSAL
The response filed on 09/03/2026 has been fully considered. None of the amendments to the drawings address any of the rejections presented in the office action dated 06/03/2026. Therefore, the refusal under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) is presented again and made FINAL. Additionally, the amendments introduce new matter. Therefore, an objection is presented below. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of the objection and rejections presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a)
Amendment to Disclosure Not Affecting Claim - 35 U.S.C. 132 Objection (New Matter)
The drawings are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically:
There is no support in the original disclosure dated 09/12/2025 for the change in shape of the elements annotated below. The current showing of the claimed design has no antecedent basis in the original disclosure and therefore constitutes impermissible new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this objection, applicant may either convincingly demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or amend the drawings to remove the linear striations.
Specification Objections
The figure descriptions are objected to as follows:
1.5 is described as both left and right. The views cannot be described as both left and right view.
Therefore, the descriptions should be amended to describe which view is intended to be right or left.
The descriptive statement is objected to as follows:
The broken-line description should expressly identify what is represented by the broken lines in addition to defining their relationship to the claimed design (MPEP 1503.01(II)). In this case, the replacement specification indicates that the broken lines in 1.7 are for purposes of illustrating portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design. However, the examiner understands the broken lines shown in 1.7 to be used for environmental purposes. As it is possible that broken lines with different purposes may be included in a single application, the description must make a visual distinction between the two purposes. See MPEP 1503.02 III.
Therefore, for accuracy and clarity, the broken line description should be amended similar to:
--The broken lines shown in 1.7 are for the purposes of illustrating environmental subject matter only and forms no part of the claimed design.--
Claim Refusal - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is again and FINALLY 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 provided is of insufficient quality to assure that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. The overall resolution of the photographs in all reproductions is poor. The following image is for example purposes only, all photographs in all reproductions should be addressed.
PNG
media_image2.png
282
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Photographs, including computer generated images simulating photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in design patent applications. The Office will only accept photographs in design patent applications when photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of the highest quality so that they can be satisfactorily reproduced in the printed patent. 37 CFR § 1.84(b)(1).
Due to the current reproduction technique used by the printer when publishing patents, it is imperative that photographic disclosures be of the highest quality and be capable of accurately conveying the actual appearance of the claimed design even when print quality is poor.
The disclosure is not clear in understanding where exactly the “enlarged” view in 1.6 is taken from. Additionally, the same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
578
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the applicant should amend the drawings to add a “broken line box” and annotation of which other reproduction the area is taken from to indicate the area in which the enlarged views are sampled from.
The exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration the following elements cannot be understood without resorting to conjecture.
Specifically:
The surfaces between the black areas annotated below in 1.3 and 1.4. due to the poor quality of the reproductions. It is unclear if these elements are surfaces or holes.
PNG
media_image4.png
870
1112
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for the indefinite elements by amending the reproductions to convert the indefinite elements to broken lines, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See additional information below.
Additionally, in 1.3-1.4 the overall shape can configuration of the claimed is distorted and is not consistent with the other views of the claimed design.
PNG
media_image5.png
329
686
media_image5.png
Greyscale
To overcome this portion of the rejection the examiner suggests deleting the 1.3-1.4 reproductions and their descriptions.
The disclosure fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The sentence in the specification [Reproduction 1.7 is a reference view, which forms no part of the claimed design] is impermissible. A disclaimer statement directed to any portion of the claimed design that is shown in solid lines in the drawings is not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent
The examiner suggests deleting reproduction 1.7 or deleting the statement.
The claim is indefinite because 1.7 shows shading within broken line elements. Additionally, the internal area does not appear to be properly converted to broken lines. Without resorting to conjecture, the disclosure does not confirm what portions of these surfaces and elements are intended to be claimed or not. Therefore, a question arises as to exactly what is being claimed, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
PNG
media_image6.png
450
1851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant may attempt to overcome this refusal by indicating that protection is not sought for the indefinite elements by amending the reproductions to convert the indefinite elements to broken lines, thus disclaiming those surfaces. See 37 CFR 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 depict portions of the Electric Cable Reel that form no part of the claimed design.--
Computer generated images of the type submitted by applicant are considered photographs for purposes of design examination. Therefore, applicant may overcome this rejection by changing the tonal value of the unclaimed areas with broken lines separating the claimed and unclaimed portions of the disclosure. Below is an example illustrating this technique of disclaiming portions of a claimed design.
PNG
media_image7.png
186
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant should review the following considerations that must be met when utilizing the above technique as a means of “disclaiming”.
1. The images submitted must be made from digital photographs or digitally scanned photographs.
2. The image needs to be large enough to appreciate the design.
3. The contrast of appearance between the claimed and non-claimed portions should be absolutely clear.
In order to achieve this clarity, a coarse dot pattern image filter should be used over the portion of the photo illustrating the non-claimed parts/portions that form no part of the claim of the design. Then, the (light/dark) contrast should be reduced and the brightness should be increased. In addition, there should be a coarse dashed broken line following the perimeter of areas of the article that embody no part of the claimed design.
The examiner will determine whether sufficient distinction between claimed and non-claimed areas has been achieved. Claimed subject matter MUST remain consistent throughout ALL views.
4. An appropriate Descriptive Statement must be included. For the attached image, a statement similar to the following would be acceptable:
"The lightened part of the photograph shown in a coarser dot pattern within the broken-line perimeter, as well as the broken-line perimeter itself, illustrates a portion of the tractor that forms no part of the claimed design."
A photo showing the details in the unclaimed areas may be filed as an appendix but should not be included in the specification. No images from the appendix will be printed in or otherwise incorporated into the claim of a patent that would result from the application.
Replacement Sheets
Corrected sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement 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 reproduction 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 USC 132 and 37 CFR 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 kayla.bennett@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)
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 stands FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-9590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-3:00 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, Supervisor, Justin Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. 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.
/KAYLA MARIE BENNETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights