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 .
Reproduction Objection
The reproductions are objected to because they do not contain sufficient margins. Hague Administrative Instructions Section 401(d): Where the application is filed on paper, a margin of at least 5 millimeters should be left around the representation of each industrial design. The reproduction numbers should also appear inside of the margins. Correction is required.
Additionally, reproductions are objected to for failing to fully disclose the industrial design because the inner curved ends in 1.1 and 1.8 are not accurately and clearly illustrated. In the drawings, it appears that the inner rounded ends meet and end abruptly. While it is understood from the curved lines of the latch that the inner surface is rounded, it is not shown that the inner ends are also curved, creating an unclear and incomplete disclosure. Hague Rule 9(2)(a) states that reproductions shall be of a quality permitting all the details of the industrial design to be clearly distinguished and permitting publication.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
1284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this objection, it is suggested that the drawings be amended to show the curves on the inner ends accurately which may include the addition of contour lines or shading to show the nature of this surface clearly. Contour lines are shown using irregularly spaced lines and may be lighter in color to distinguish from the solid lines of the claim. 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). Below is a suggestion for an acceptable correction:
PNG
media_image2.png
820
1961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 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 because the exact and complete appearance of the design cannot be determined due to a portion of the carabiner key holder, which is shown only in one view, figure 1.1. Showing an element only in one view makes it impossible to distinguish the differences between the orientation and curvatures of planes, which may create a variety of different depths within the design. Showing a three-dimensional article with a single two-dimensional drawing is insufficient in demonstrating the exact shape and relative depth of an element. “With articles which are unsymmetrical and which present different appearances from different points of view, one figure from a single point, however well executed, is not sufficient for complete disclosure,” Ex parte Salsbury, 38 USPQ 149 (ComrPats 1938).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
1267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specifically, a polygonal element seated inside the hinge area is shown only in 1.1 and the full details of which cannot be understood. There is also a diagonal line adjacent to that element that is not understood. In order for one of ordinary skill to understand how the present design gives form to a three-dimensional article, one must resort to conjecture. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and non-enabling.
To overcome this rejection, it is recommended to reduce these elements to broken lines and include a broken line statement in the specification which clearly identifies and describes those broken lines as forming no part of the claimed design. An example of an acceptable broken line statement is as follows:
--The broken lines show portions of the Carabiner Key Holder and form no part of the claimed design.--
To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the drawings be amended to show the design clearly and consistently in all views. 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.
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.
Replacement Drawings
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. If a drawing 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 drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing 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 drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
Avoidance Of New Matter
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b), as set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA A JUNKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
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 Bugg can be reached at (571) 272-2998. 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.
/J.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2911
/JONATHAN J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2912
