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 .
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling due to the following unclear parts which prevent a clear understanding of the design which applicant seeks protection for:
Unclear Parts
Figure 1.8 shows solid line structural features and shaded surfaces applied within the bottom interior of the article of which the exact depth pf these surfaces is unclear and cannot be reconciled with any other views. Therefore, in order to overcome this portion of the rejection, it is suggested that applicant amend the drawings to remove the features considered indefinite and nonenabling from the claimed design by using the same purple transparent color wash to identify these surfaces. See Hague Administrative Instructions Section 403 for information on how to disclaim matter that forms no part of the claimed design using broken lines, text, or color. Alternatively, applicant may cancel views if such does not have a negative impact on an overall understanding of the claimed design.
See surfaces within and including the surfaces highlighted with arrows and white broken lines for identification of surfaces in question.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because of the insufficient information in the drawings 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 non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter.
If applicant chooses to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines or using a transparent color wash, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). 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).
Replacement Reproductions
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 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 reproductions 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 drawing 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 the remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design.
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 Interviews
A telephonic 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 :/ywww.uspto.gov/‘patent,'forms/forms-patent-applications-fiied-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.
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
catherine.posthauer@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 consider 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 official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of
refusal, please note the following:
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 Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/
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/paterits-niaintaining-pateni/responcirig-office-actlons
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
The references cited but not applied are considered the most pertinent art related to the claimed design. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Catherine Posthauer whose telephone Number is (571) 270-0233. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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, George Ulsh, can be reached on 571-270-1433. 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 the Patent Center, https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/. Status information for published applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished
applications are available through Patent Center only. For more information about the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
