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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application IT402025000000822, filed in Italy on 03/26/2025. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objections
Title
The title of the design must designate the particular article. No description, other than a reference to the reproduction, is ordinarily required. The title "Composite furniture for kitchen" included description.
For clarity and accuracy, (MPEP 1503.01,I) the examiner suggests the title be amended to read:
-- Kitchen Furniture Assembly –
or another title as appropriate. The title must be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted.
Specifications
The special descriptive statement following the reproduction descriptions, and the special descriptive statement following the broken line statement, is objected to as the information included is unnecessary to the design claim. “Descriptive material should be reduced to a minimum, or, better still, entirely eliminated from design patent specifications.” See In re Freeman, 109 O.G. 1904 C.D. 619, 23 App. D.C. 226 (1904).
The special description of the broken lines, following the figure descriptions, is objectionable for the following: The broken line statement refers to a “model” and not to the title of the claimed design. Therefore, the broken line description should be amended to read as follows:
-- The broken lines depict portions of the Kitchen Furniture Assembly that form no part of the claimed design. --
Refusals
Claim Refusals: 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b)
The claim is 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.
When viewing the figures at 100% zoom, there are areas where the lines bleed together into thick dark lines or black masses, making it difficult to verify details and consistencies among views. Additionally, it is hindering the understanding of contour lines on the claimed design. It is unclear if the curved edges on the kitchen island are beveled or if they are just two lines that are flushed with the surface. See the annotated reproductions below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1029
1505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
Throughout the reproductions there are both broken lines and solid lines shown interchangeably on parts of the claimed design, and it is unclear whether it is meant to be claimed or unclaimed. Reproductions 1.2-1.5, show the bottom edge of the kitchen island in broken line, however, reproductions 1.8-1.11, show the bottom edge of the kitchen island in solid line. Additionally, reproduction 1.4 shows the inset shelving on the right side of the kitchen island in broken line, however, reproductions 1.1, 1.8, and 1.10 show the inset shelving on the right side of the kitchen island in solid line. Therefore the scope of the claimed design cannot be determined. Clarification is required. See annotated reproductions below:
PNG
media_image2.png
354
1235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2
PNG
media_image3.png
751
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8
PNG
media_image4.png
766
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
512
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
Reproduction 1.4
There are features on the underside of the claimed design that are unclear in appearance. The exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of these features cannot be fully understood from reproduction 1.8. These areas could be raised, flat or recessed. As there is no support in the other views for this appearance, their appearance cannot be determined. Everything shaded in the annotation below is subject to speculation. Applicant should consider converting the features to broken line and removing them from the claim. Clarity is required. See annotated reproduction below:
PNG
media_image6.png
651
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8
Throughout the reproductions, there are inconsistencies with the showing of features and lines on the claimed design. Some views show the features and/or lines and other views do not, leaving the appearance of these portions of the claimed design unclear. Clarification is required. See annotated reproductions below:
PNG
media_image7.png
651
555
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
553
690
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7
Reproduction 1.8
PNG
media_image9.png
622
1497
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.7
PNG
media_image10.png
767
1061
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8
PNG
media_image11.png
917
1302
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
890
840
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
Reproduction 1.9
PNG
media_image13.png
675
1024
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.1
PNG
media_image14.png
601
1196
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.2
PNG
media_image15.png
720
754
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.10
PNG
media_image16.png
497
1185
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3
Throughout the reproductions, there are floating lines that are left unconnected. Because of the incomplete lines, we cannot determine the shape of these portions of the claimed design. They could be straight, curved etc. Clarification is required. See annotated reproductions below:
PNG
media_image17.png
703
1744
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.3
PNG
media_image18.png
725
1590
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Reproduction 1.8
For the reasons outlined, 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 and is therefore indefinite. This renders the claim non-enabled.
To overcome these rejections, it is suggested that the reproduction s be amended to show the design clearly and consistently in all views, and to show crisp, clean, clear lines. Any amendment to the claim must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. See 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter.
Replacement Reproductions
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected reproductions are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Any amended replacement reproduction 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 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 reproduction s 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 reproduction s. 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.
Conclusion
The claim stands refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as set forth above.
Prior art cited but not applied is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELISABETH M LANGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Barbara Fox can be reached at (571) 272-4456. 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.
/E.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2931
/MARY ANN CALABRESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2931
Prosecution Insights