Truss for lighting fixtures of motor racing circuits

Detailed Action The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Comment Examiner has attempted to point out all deficiencies present within the drawings; however, due to the scope of the claim and the diminished rendering of the drawings, there may be additional issues present which have not been noted within the following office action. Drawing Objections The drawings are objected to because of the following. The overall rendering of the figures is of poor quality. Given the current rendering quality, many of the smaller lines and features appear extremely blurry when enlarged for clarity, and the majority of the edge lines are so choppy that it is difficult to determine if they are broken or solid lines. When enlarged, gray pixellation is also present along the edge lines and throughout the views. See the following page: PNG media_image1.png 904 1274 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 921 812 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 712 1572 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 833 1210 media_image4.png Greyscale One of the circular elements shown in Fig. 1.6 appears to be missing from Fig. 1.1. See below: PNG media_image5.png 950 2009 media_image5.png Greyscale A portion of the slanted vertical support post in Fig. 1.1 appears to bisect through the opaque railing (in which it would be obscured. See below: PNG media_image6.png 1652 1410 media_image6.png Greyscale Portions of edge lines appear to vanish in Figs. 1.4 and 1.5. See below: PNG media_image7.png 817 741 media_image7.png Greyscale A pair of vertical elements is shown in Figs 1.2 and 1.3 which does not appear to correspond with anything shown in the other Figures. See below: PNG media_image8.png 665 968 media_image8.png Greyscale The drawings must consistently and completely depict the claimed design. Correction of the drawing is required. 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). Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing 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 drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing 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. Title & Specification Objections The title is objected to for the following. “Truss for Lighting Fixtures of Motor Racing Circuits” is objected to for being potentially limiting to the claim. It is recommended that the title be changed to one of the following or something similar: --- Truss for Lighting Fixtures --- --- Truss --- --- Truss Framework --- The Specification is objected to for the following: As Figs 1.4 and 1.5 appear to have been enlarged in comparison to the other Figures, this should be denoted within their corresponding Fig. descriptions for clarity. Additionally, as the sole phrases “right” and “left” are not recognizable viewpoints, the descriptions should also denote that they are side views. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following: The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: There are several elements present within the Figures which cannot be understood or the configuration of which cannot be determined, both of which are due to the poor rendering and the lack of additional detail views in which these elements might be clearly shown. See below: PNG media_image9.png 916 1665 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 817 1259 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 584 1794 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 721 1001 media_image12.png Greyscale There are darkened areas resembling zig-zag lines present along the sides of the vertically standing trusswork; however, due to the poor rendering it cannot be determined whether these areas are actual separations between the elements or merely surface ornamentation applied to the exterior of the structure. See below: PNG media_image13.png 842 945 media_image13.png Greyscale Because of the unclear disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. Summation The claim stands rejected for the reasons set forth above. The references cited but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. Hague - 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 PTO/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. 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’, available at https:/Awww.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 communications 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. Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence 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 Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply 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/maintain/responding-office-actions Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY MARGARET PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 4 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LAKIYA ROGERS, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-7145. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /SYDNEY MARGARET PARSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2934 /T Chase NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912