DETAILED ACTION
Restriction Not Required
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - Figs. 1.1-1.6
Embodiment 2 - Figs. 2.1-2.6
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The above-identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Any rejection of one embodiment over prior art will apply equally to all other embodiments. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments.
Specification Objection
The statement reading [The essential characteristics of the design lie in its shape] is objectionable. There are two claimed embodiments with the same shape, however, the first embodiment also includes surface shading. According to this statement, this shading/contrast may be read as being somehow nonessential.
The statement should be canceled.
Descriptions of the figures are not required to be written in any particular format, however, if they do not describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately, the examiner should object to the unclear and/or inaccurate descriptions. See MPEP 2920.04(a).
There are no portions of a claimed design which are immaterial or unimportant. See In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 153 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1967) and In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b), 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 regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following:
There are multiple ways to interpret the information shown in Fig. 1.3 and 2.3. Fig.1.3 and 2.3 show three triangles on the back of the voltage detector. These triangles are not shown in the side views, which means that they do not extend beyond the back plane of the voltage detector. Based on the drawings provided, it is not possible to determine the shape and configuration of these triangles. It is unclear to the examiner whether they are coplanar to each other and the back plane of the voltage detector or whether they are recessed, and if so, how much.
PNG
media_image1.png
711
1222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the drawing disclosure is currently presented, Fig. 1.3 and 2.3 are 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. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests the applicant may remove the indefinite features from the claim by converting the three triangles on the back of the voltage detector to broken lines and removing any contour lines. The applicant should also remove the gray shading within the triangles in Fig. 1.3. See below for a mock-up.
PNG
media_image2.png
553
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The applicant should also amend the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. The examiner suggests:
“The broken lines depict portions of the Voltage Detector that form no part of the claimed design.”
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)&(b).
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amendment submitted in response to this Office action must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY ANNE ARNTZEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Sandra Snapp, can be reached at (571) 272-8364. 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.
/M.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2914
/BRETT MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2934
Prosecution Insights