Outdoor fold-down seat

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 . 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) for the following reasons: All the members within the enclosed areas shown on the hanging straps in Fig. 1.3 are omitted from the corresponding portion of the straps in Fig. 1.5. The portion of strap A shown in Figs. 1.3 and 1.6 has a lighter gray color, which is inconsistent with the darker color in Figs. 1.1, 1.2, and 1.5. PNG media_image1.png 649 719 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 370 367 media_image2.png Greyscale All of the members within the enclosed areas shown on the hanging straps in Fig. 1.3 are omitted from the portions of the straps in Fig. 1.5. It is understood that only portions of the straps are shown in Fig. 1.5, rather than the full straps shown in Figs. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6. Figure 1.4 is a view of the lower portion of the seat, illustrated without the top portion for clarity. The broken lines B and four protruding slots C are shown in solid and broken lines, where the broken lines represent hidden structural elements within the seat. Unlike mechanical engineering drafts, industrial design patent drawings do not use dashed or broken lines to represent hidden internal features of opaque objects. Only visible surfaces are claimed with solid lines. PNG media_image3.png 643 879 media_image3.png Greyscale The necessity for good drawings in a design patent application cannot be overemphasized. As the drawing constitutes the whole disclosure of the design, it is of utmost importance that it be so well executed both as to clarity of showing and completeness, that nothing regarding the design sought to be patented is left to conjecture. An insufficient drawing may be fatal to validity (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Moreover, an insufficient drawing may have a negative effect with respect to the effective filing date of a continuing application. Any attempt to clarify the claimed design must avoid the introduction of new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132; 37 CFR 1.121. 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. The broken lines B and the slot members C in Fig. 1.4 should be converted to full lines if they are parts of the claimed invention. Otherwise, they should be converted to fully broken lines, and a broken line statement must be added to the specification to disclaim the unclaimed areas, 37 CFR 1.152 and MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III. Any amended replacement-reproduction sheet should include all 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 appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. Each sheet of reproductions 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). The number of the drawing figures should not be changed even if one or more figures are canceled. The numbering of the reproductions must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) (see CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02). 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. Specification For clarity and to correspond to the drawings, the descriptions of FIGS. 1.2 to 1.4 should be amended to read: -- 1.2: top (the seat and the hanging straps are shown separately for ease of illustration) 1.3: right perspective 1.4: lower seat portion (without top seat portion for clarity) -- Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mimosa De whose telephone number is 571-272-2637. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm, Eastern time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Fox, can be reached at telephone number (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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 /Mimosa De/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2931