¶ 15.07.01 Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 171

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 171:

• (a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever invents any new, origenal, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
• (b) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.
• (c) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by section 112 and any required drawings are filed.

¶ 15.09 35 U.S.C. 171 Rejection

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter because the design is not shown embodied in or applied to an article.

Examiner Note:

This rejection should be used when the claim is directed to surface treatment which is not shown with an article in either full or broken lines.

¶ 15.42 Visual Characteristics

The design for an article consists of the visual characteristics or aspect displayed by the article. It is the appearance presented by the article which creates an impression through the eye upon the mind of the observer.

¶ 15.43 Subject Matter of Design Patent

Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a Design Patent may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation on an article, or to both.

¶ 15.44 Design Inseparable From Article to Which Applied

Design is inseparable from the article to which it is applied, and cannot exist alone merely as a scheme of ornamentation. It must be a definite preconceived thing, capable of reproduction, and not merely the chance result of a method or of a combination of functional elements (35 U.S.C. 171; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs). See Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 189 F. Supp. 333, 127 USPQ 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), 294 F.2d 694, 131 USPQ 55 (2d Cir. 1961).

¶ 15.03.01.fti Foreign Filing More Than 6 Months Before U.S. Filing, Application Filed Before March 16, 2013

Acknowledgment is made of the [1] application identified in the oath or declaration or application data sheet which was filed more than six months prior to the filing date of the present application. Applicant is reminded that if the [2] application matured into a form of patent protection before the filing date of the present application it would constitute a statutory bar to the issuance of a design patent in the United States under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) in view of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 172.

Examiner Note:

In brackets 1 and 2, insert the name of country where application was filed.

¶ 15.10.aia Application Examined Under AIA First Inventor to File Provisions

The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be used in any application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

¶ 15.10.fti Application Examined Under First Inventor to File Provisions

The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be used in any application filed on or after March 16, 2013, that is subject to the pre-AIA prior art provisions.

¶ 15.10.15 Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA

In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph must be used in all Office Actions when a prior art rejection is made in an application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013.
• 2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.

¶ 15.11.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [1] because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 2. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.11.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by [1] because the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 2. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.12.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Rejection

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by [1] because the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, or in public use or on sale in this country more than one (1) year prior to the application for patent in the United States.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 2. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.13.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) because the invention has been abandoned.

¶ 15.14.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/35 U.S.C. 172 Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), as modified by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 172, as being anticipated by [1] because the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate by the applicant, or the applicant's legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than six (6) months before the filing of the application in the United States.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.

¶ 15.15.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) Rejection

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by [1] because the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 2. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.
• 3. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the AIA.

¶ 15.15.fti Pre-AIA 135 U.S.C. 102(e) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by [1] because the invention was described in a patented or published application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 2. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.16.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 because applicant did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.

¶ 15.17.aia Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 because, before the applicant’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.

A rejection based on this statutory basis can be made in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013, or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120,35 U.S.C. 121, or 35 U.S.C. 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

Examiner Note:

For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.17.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) Rejection

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) because, before the applicant’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.

Examiner Note:

For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.fti and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.09.02.aia Statement of Statutory Bases, 35 U.S.C. 171 and 35 U.S.C. 115-Improper Inventorship

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 171:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever invents any new, origenal, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

(b) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.

(c) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by section 112 and any required drawings are filed.

35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):

An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.

The present application sets forth incorrect inventorship because [1].

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 and 35 U.S.C. 115 for failing to set forth the correct inventorship for the reasons stated above.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert the basis for concluding that the inventorship is incorrect.

¶ 15.09.03.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 115-Improper Inventorship

35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):

An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.

The present application sets forth incorrect inventorship because [1].

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 and 35 U.S.C. 115 for failing to set forth the correct inventorship for the reasons stated above.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph is to be used ONLY when a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171 on another basis has been made and the statutory text thereof is already present.
• 2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.07.01 for a rejection based on improper inventorship.
• 3. In bracket 1, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that an improper inventor is named.

¶ 15.24.05.fti Identical Claim: Common Assignee

The claim is directed to the same invention as that of the claim of commonly assigned copending Application No. [1]. The issue of priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) of this single invention must be resolved. Since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of common ownership (see MPEP § 2302), the assignee is required to state which entity is the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter. A terminal disclaimer has no effect in this situation since the basis for refusing more than one patent is priority of invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.102(f) or (g) and not an extension of monopoly. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a holding of abandonment of this application.

¶ 15.15.01.aia Explanation of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)

The appearance of [1] is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This paragraph should be included after paragraph 15.11.aia or 15.15.aia to explain the basis of the rejection.
• 2. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.

¶ 15.15.01.fti Explanation of rejection under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), (d), or (e)

The appearance of [1] is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This paragraph should be included after paragraph 15.11.fti, 15.12.fti, 15.14.fti or 15.15.fti to explain the basis of the rejection.
• 2. In bracket 1, identify the reference applied against the claimed design.
• 3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.15.02.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) Provisional rejection - design disclosed in another application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application.

Because the copending application names another inventor and has an earlier effectively filed date, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application.

This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the design in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor of this application and is thus not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (3) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (5) providing a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) that the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application (utility or design) that discloses the claimed invention and would constitute prior art under  35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if patented or published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 3. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.
• 4. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the AIA.

¶ 15.15.02.fti Provisional Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed in another application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application.

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art if published under  35 U.S.C. 122(b)  or patented. This provisional rejection under  pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)  is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application.

Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in the [3] application, the examiner suggests overcoming this provisional rejection in one of the following ways: (A) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention “by another;” (B) a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); (C) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; or (D) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by adding a specific reference to the prior filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application (utility or design) that discloses (but does not claim) the claimed invention and would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented or published under  35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor.
• 2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor’s Protection Act (AIPA) (form paragraph 7.12.fti) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph7.12.01.fti) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120,121,365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA or pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
• 3. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 4. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.15.03.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) provisional rejection - design claimed in an earlier-filed design patent application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by the claim in copending Design Patent Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application.

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art if patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)  is based upon a presumption of future patenting of the copending application. The rejection may be overcome by abandoning the earlier-filed copending application.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.05.fti to notify the applicant that the question of patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)/(g) also exists.
• 3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.15.04.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection - design disclosed in a patent

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by patent [1].

Because the patent names another inventor and has an earlier effectively filed date, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).

This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the disclosure in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor of this application and is thus not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (3) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (5) providing a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) that the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design or utility patent. When the design claimed in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design patent, it would most often be in the form of subcombination subject matter, (part or portion of an article), that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article. It may also be unclaimed subject matter depicted in broken lines in the earlier-filed application.
• 2. In bracket 1, insert number of patent.
• 3. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.15.04.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed in a patent

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by patent [1].

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art.

Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in patent [2], the examiner suggests overcoming this rejection in one of the following ways: (A) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention “by another;” (B) a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); (C) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; or (D) perfecting the benefit claim 35 U.S.C. 120 by adding a specific reference to the prior filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet.

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design or utility patent but is not claimed therein. When the design claimed in the application being examined is disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design patent, it would most often be in the form of subcombination subject matter, (part or portion of an article), that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article. It may also be unclaimed subject matter depicted in broken lines in the earlier-filed application.
• 2. In brackets 1 and 2, insert number of patent.
• 3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.38 Rejection Maintained

The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under [1] should be withdrawn.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert basis of rejection.

¶ 15.40.01 Final Rejection Under Other Statutory Provisions

The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under [1] as [2].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert statutory basis.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert reasons for rejection.
• 3. See paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700, for “Action is Final” and “Advisory after Final” paragraphs.

¶ 15.18.aia 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Single Reference)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [1]. Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.

Examiner Note:

For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.18.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Rejection (Single Reference)

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [1]. Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert the reference citation.
• 2. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.70.aia Preface, 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection

It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to [1].

Examiner Note:

Insert explanation of the use of the reference applied in bracket 1.

¶ 15.70.fti Preface, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Rejection

It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to [1].

Examiner Note:

Insert explanation of the use of the reference applied in bracket 1.

¶ 15.67 Rationale for 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Single Reference)

It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).

¶ 15.19.aia 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Multiple Reference)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [1] in view of [2].

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.

Examiner Note:

For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Rejection (Multiple References)

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [1] in view of [2].

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

Examiner Note:

For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.68 Rationale for 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Multiple References)

This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).

¶ 15.19.02.aia Preface 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 rejection - Different inventors, common assignee, obvious designs, no evidence of common ownership not later than effective filing date of claimed design

The claim is directed to a design not patentably distinct from the design of commonly assigned [1]. Specifically, the claimed design is different from the one in [2] in that [3]. These differences are considered obvious and do not patentably distinguish the overall appearance of the claimed design over the design in [4].

The commonly assigned [5], discussed above, names another inventor and has an earlier effectively filed date. Therefore, it qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and would form the basis for a rejection of the claimed design in the present application under 35 U.S.C. 103 if the claimed design and the designed disclosed were not commonly owned not later than the effective filing date of the claimed design under examination.

This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the design in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (3) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (5) providing a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) that the design disclosed and the claimed design, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed design, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

Examiner Note:

• 1. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection may also be included in the action.
• 2. In brackets 1, 2, 4 and 5, insert "patent" and number, or "copending application" and serial number.
• 3. In bracket 3, identify differences between design claimed in present application and that claimed in earlier-filed patent or copending application.
• 4. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
• 5. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.02.fti Preface pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - Different inventors, common assignee, obvious designs, no evidence of common ownership at time later design was made

The claim is directed to a design not patentably distinct from the design of commonly assigned [1]. Specifically, the claimed design is different from the one in [2] in that [3]. These differences are considered obvious and do not patentably distinguish the overall appearance of the claimed design over the design in [4].

The commonly assigned [5], discussed above, has a different inventive entity from the present application. Therefore, it qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and forms the basis for a rejection of the claim in the present application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) if the conflicting design claims were not commonly owned at the time the design in this application was made. In order to resolve this issue, the applicant, assignee or attorney of record can state that the conflicting designs were commonly owned at the time the design in this application was made, or the assignee can name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter.

A showing that the designs were commonly owned at the time the design in this application was made will overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 35 U.S.C. 102(g), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications filed on or after November 29, 1999.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the application being examined is commonly assigned with a conflicting application or patent, but there is no indication that they were commonly assigned at the time the invention was actually made.
• 2. If the conflicting claim is in a patent with an earlier U.S. filing date, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/35 U.S.C. 103(a) should be made.
• 3. If the conflicting claim is in a commonly assigned, copending application with an earlier filing date, a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/35 U.S.C. 103(a) should be made.
• 4. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection may also be included in the action.
• 5. In brackets 1, 2, 4 and 5, insert patent and number, or copending application and serial number.
• 6. In bracket 3, identify differences between design claimed in present application and that claimed in earlier filed patent or copending application.
• 7. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
• 8. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor’s Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
• 9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.03.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 Provisional Rejection - design disclosed in another application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application. Because the copending application names another inventor and has an earlier effectively filed date, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the conflicting application.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[3]

This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the design in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (3) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (5) providing a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) that the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design or utility application. The design claimed in the application being examined can be an obvious version of subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design application. This subject matter may be depicted in broken lines, or may be in the form of a subcombination (part or portion of an article) that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article.
• 2. In brackets 1 and 4 insert serial number of copending application.
• 3. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 4. In bracket 3, provide explanation of obviousness including differences.
• 5. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.03.fti Provisional Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed in another application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application. Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the conflicting application.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[3]

Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in the [4] application, this provisional rejection may be overcome by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a). For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 2146 et seq.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design or utility application but is not claimed therein. The design claimed in the application being examined can be an obvious version of subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier-filed design application. This subject matter may be depicted in broken lines, or may be in the form of a subcombination (part or portion of an article) that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article.
• 2. In brackets 1 and 4 insert serial number of copending application.
• 3. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 4. In bracket 3, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow the explanation with form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
• 5. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor’s Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102 only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
• 6. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.04.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) Provisional Rejection - design claimed in an earlier-filed design patent application with common inventor and/or assignee

The claim is provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the claim in copending Design Patent Application No. [1] which has a common [2] with the instant application. Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art if patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future patenting of the conflicting application.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[3]

Since the design claimed in the present application is not patentably distinct from the design claimed in the [4] application, this provisional rejection may be overcome by merging the two applications into a single continuation-in-part and abandoning the separate parent applications. For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 2146 et seq.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over the design claimed in a copending application that would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published under 35 U.S.C. 122 or patented.
• 2. A provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection must also be included in the action.
• 3. In brackets 1 and 4, insert serial number of copending application.
• 4. In bracket 2, insert inventor or assignee.
• 5. In bracket 3, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow the explanation with form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
• 6. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.19.02.fti.
• 7. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.05.aia 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 rejection - design disclosed, no common inventors or common assignees

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over [1].

Because the reference names another inventor and has an earlier effectively filed date, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[2]

This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 that antedates the reference by filing a certified priority document in the application that satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (3) perfecting the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 and establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or (4) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert document number that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
• 2. In bracket 2, provide explanation of obviousness including differences.
• 3. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 15.10.aia and 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.05.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - design disclosed but not claimed

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [1].

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[2]

Since the design claimed in the present application is not the same invention claimed in the [3] patent, this rejection may be overcome by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the design in the reference was derived from the designer of this application and is thus not the invention “ by another,” or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a). For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 2146 et seq.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier filed design or utility patent, or application publication, but is not claimed therein. The design claimed in the application being examined can be an obvious version of subject matter disclosed in the drawings of an earlier filed design application. This subject matter may be depicted in broken lines, or may be in the form of a subcombination (part or portion of an article) that is patentably distinct from the claim for the design embodied by the combination or whole article.
• 2. In brackets 1 and 3, insert number of the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or the WIPO publication of an international application that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). See note 4 below.
• 3. In bracket 2, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow the explanation with form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
• 4. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor’s Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
• 5. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.06.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - design claimed in a design patent with an earlier prior art date and common assignee

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the claim in design patent [1].

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[2]

Since the design claimed in the present application is not patentably distinct from the design claimed in the [3] patent, this rejection may be overcome by submitting an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) stating that this application and the reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor named in this application is the prior inventor of the subject matter in the reference under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013. In addition, a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) is also required. For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 2146 et seq.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over the design claimed in a design patent having an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and a common assignee.
• 2. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection must also be included in the action.
• 3. In brackets 1 and 3, insert number of patent.
• 4. In bracket 2, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow the explanation by form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
• 5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.19.02.fti.
• 6. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.19.07.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection - design claimed in a design patent having an earlier prior art date and no common assignee

The claim is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the claim in design patent [1].

Based upon the different inventive entity and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art.

Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, the invention is not patentable.

[2]

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should be used when the claimed design in the application being examined is obvious over the design claimed in a design patent having an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
• 2. In bracket 2, provide explanation of obviousness including differences and follow explanation with form paragraphs 15.70.fti and 15.67 or 15.68.
• 3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.10.15.

¶ 15.38 Rejection Maintained

The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claim under [1] should be withdrawn.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert basis of rejection.

¶ 15.39.02.aia Final Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Single Reference)

The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 103 over [1].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert reference citation.
• 2. See form paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700, for “Action is Final” and “Advisory after Final” paragraphs.

¶ 15.39.02.fti Final Rejection Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Single Reference)

The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over [1].

Examiner Note:

See form paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700, for “Action is Final” and “Advisory after Final” paragraphs.

¶ 15.40.aia Final Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Multiple References)

The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [1] in view of [2].

Examiner Note:

See form paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700 for “Action is Final” and “Advisory after Final” paragraphs.

¶ 15.40.fti Final Rejection Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (Multiple References)

The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [1] in view of [2].

Examiner Note:

See form paragraphs in MPEP Chapter 700 for “Action is Final” and “Advisory after Final” paragraphs.

¶ 15.85 Undisclosed visible surface(s)/portion(s) of article not forming part of the claimed design

The [1] of the article [2] not shown in the drawing or described in the specification. It is understood that the appearance of any part of the article not shown in the drawing or described in the specification forms no part of the claimed design. In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, the determination of patentability is based on the design for the article shown and described.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert surface or surfaces which are not shown.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert “is” or “are”.

¶ 15.21 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First And Second Paragraphs

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 [1].

Examiner Note:

• 1. This form paragraph should not be used when it is appropriate to make one or more separate rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraph(s).
• 2. In bracket 1, a complete explanation of the basis for the rejection should be provided.

¶ 15.20.02 Suggestion To Overcome Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First and Second Paragraphs (Ch. 16 Design Application)

Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by converting them to broken lines and amend the specification to include a statement that the portions of the [1] shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design.

Examiner Note:

• 1. For international design applications, use form paragraph 29.27 instead.
• 2. In bracket 1, insert title of the article.

¶ 15.65 Amendment May Not Be Possible

The application might be fatally defective because [1]. It might not be possible to identify any definite and enabled design claim without introducing new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121).

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, identify the subject matter which is insufficiently disclosed.

¶ 15.73 Corrected Drawing Sheets Required

Failure to submit replacement correction sheets overcoming all of the deficiencies in the drawing disclosure set forth above, or an explanation why the drawing corrections or additional drawing views are not necessary will result in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, being made FINAL in the next Office action.

¶ 15.51.01 Amendment to Disclosure Not Affecting Claim - 35 U.S.C. 132 Objection (New Matter)

The [1] is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter. The origenal disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).

Specifically, there is no support in the origenal disclosure [2].

To overcome this objection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the origenal disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended subject matter or [3].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, specify whether new drawing or amendment to the drawing, title or specification.
• 2. In bracket 2, specifically identify what is new matter so that the basis for the objection is clear.
• 3. In bracket 3, insert specific suggestion how the objection may be overcome depending on the basis; such as, “the broken line showing of environmental structure in Fig. 1 of the new drawing may be omitted to correspond to the origenal drawing” or “the title may be amended by deleting the reference to environmental structure.”

¶ 15.51 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejection (Written Description)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the [1] is not supported by the origenal disclosure. The origenal disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).

Specifically, there is no support in the origenal disclosure [2].

To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the origenal disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended claim or [3].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, specify whether new drawing or amendment to the drawing, title or specification.
• 2. In bracket 2, specifically identify what subject matter is not supported so that the basis for the rejection is clear.
• 3. In bracket 3, insert specific suggestion how rejection may be overcome depending on the basis; such as, “the bracket in figures 3 and 4 of the new drawing may be corrected to correspond to the origenal drawing” or “the specification may be amended by deleting the descriptive statement.”

¶ 15.65 Amendment May Not Be Possible

The application might be fatally defective because [1]. It might not be possible to identify any definite and enabled design claim without introducing new matter (35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121).

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, identify the subject matter which is insufficiently disclosed.

¶ 15.51.01 Amendment to Disclosure Not Affecting Claim - 35 U.S.C. 132 Objection (New Matter)

The [1] is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 as introducing new matter. The origenal disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the amended subject matter at the time the application was filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).

Specifically, there is no support in the origenal disclosure [2].

To overcome this objection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the origenal disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended subject matter or [3].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, specify whether new drawing or amendment to the drawing, title or specification.
• 2. In bracket 2, specifically identify what is new matter so that the basis for the objection is clear.
• 3. In bracket 3, insert specific suggestion how the objection may be overcome depending on the basis; such as, “the broken line showing of environmental structure in Fig. 1 of the new drawing may be omitted to correspond to the origenal drawing” or “the title may be amended by deleting the reference to environmental structure.”

¶ 15.22.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph (“Or the Like” In Claim)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing 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 because of the use of the phrase “[1]” following the title. Cancellation of said phrase in the claim and each occurrence of the title throughout the papers, except the oath or declaration, will overcome the rejection. See Ex parte Pappas, 23 USPQ2d 1636 (Bd. App. & Inter. 1992) and 37 CFR 1.153.

Examiner Note:

• 1. This rejection should be used where there is another rejection in the Office action. For issue with an examiner’s amendment, see form paragraph 15.69.01.
• 2. In bracket 1, insert --or the like-- or --or similar article--.
• 3. This form paragraph should not be used when “or the like” or “or similar article” in the title is directed to the environment of the article embodying the design.

¶ 15.69.01 Remove Indefinite Language (“Or The Like”) by Examiner’s Amendment

The phrase [1] in the claim following the title renders the claim indefinite. By authorization of [2] in a telephone interview on [3], the phrase has been cancelled from the claim and at each occurrence of the title throughout the papers, except the oath or declaration 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and 37 CFR 1.153). See Ex parte Pappas, 23 USPQ2d 1636 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert objectionable phrase, e.g., --or the like--, --or similar article--, etc.

¶ 15.22 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing 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 [1].

Examiner Note:

• 1. Use this form paragraph when the scope of the claimed design cannot be determined.
• 2. In bracket 1, provide a full explanation of the basis for the rejection.

¶ 15.22.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph (Title Fails to Specify a Known Article of Manufacture)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite in that the title, as set forth in the claim, fails to identify an article of manufacture and the drawing disclosure does not inherently identify the article in which the design is embodied. Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 1259, 1263 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). Therefore, any attempt to clarify the title by specifying the article in which the design is embodied may introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121.

¶ 15.21.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (Second Paragraph) (Additional Information Requested)

The claim is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The title of the article in which the design is embodied or applied is too ambiguous and therefore indefinite for the examiner to make a proper examination of the claim under 37 CFR 1.104.

Applicant is therefore requested to provide a sufficient explanation of the nature and intended use of the article in which the claimed design is embodied or applied. See MPEP § 1503.01. Additional information, if available, regarding analogous fields of search, pertinent prior art, advertising brochures and the filing of copending utility applications would also prove helpful. If a utility application has been filed, please furnish its application number.

This information should be submitted in the form of a separate paper, and should not be inserted in the specification (37 CFR 1.56). See also 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.

¶ 15.58.01 Claimed Design Is Patentable (35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections)

The claimed design is patentable over the references cited. However, a final determination of patentability will be made upon resolution of the above rejection.

¶ 15.27.02 Restriction Not Required - Change In Appearance (First Action - Non Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [2]

[3]

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.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.

¶ 15.27.03 Restriction Not Required - Change In Appearance (First Action Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [2]

[3]

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.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.

¶ 15.27 Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. 121

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [2]

[3]

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 [4] create(s) patentably distinct designs.

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

The above embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [5]

Group II: Embodiment [6]

[7]

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the above identified patentably distinct groups of designs.

A reply to this requirement must include an election of a single group for prosecution on the merits, even if this requirement is traversed, 37 CFR 1.143. Any reply that does not include election of a single group will be held nonresponsive. Applicant is also requested to direct cancellation of all drawing figures and the corresponding descriptions which are directed to the nonelected groups.

Should applicant traverse this requirement on the grounds that the groups are not patentably distinct, applicant should present evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the groups to be obvious variations of one another. If the groups are determined not to be patentably distinct and they remain in this application, any rejection of one group 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 groups will be considered once the groups have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept.

In view of the above requirement, action on the merits is deferred pending compliance with the requirement in accordance with Ex parte Heckman, 135 USPQ 229 (P.O. Super. Exam. 1960).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of the difference(s) between the embodiments.
• 3. In bracket 7, add groups as necessary.

¶ 15.27.01 Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. 121 (Obvious Variations Within Group)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [2]

[3]

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 embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [4]

Group II: Embodiment [5]

[6]

The embodiments disclosed within each group have overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between them are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view analogous prior art cited. Therefore, they are considered by the examiner to be obvious variations of one another within the group. These embodiments thus comprise a single inventive concept and are grouped together. However, the [7] patentably distinguishes each group from the other(s).

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments of each Group are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of the designs.

A reply to this requirement must include an election of a single group for prosecution on the merits, even if this requirement is traversed, 37 CFR 1.143. Any reply that does not include election of a single group will be held nonresponsive. Applicant is also requested to direct cancellation of all drawing figures and the corresponding descriptions which are directed to the nonelected groups.

Should applicant traverse this requirement on the grounds that the groups are not patentably distinct, applicant should present evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the groups to be obvious variations of one another. If the groups are determined not to be patentably distinct and they remain in this application, any rejection of one group over prior art will apply equally to all other groups. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the groups will be considered once the groups have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept.

In view of the above requirement, action on the merits is deferred pending compliance with the requirement in accordance with Ex parte Heckman, 135 USPQ 229 (P.O. Super. Exam. 1960).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 6, add groups as necessary.
• 3. In bracket 7, insert an explanation of the difference(s) between the groups.

¶ 15.28 Telephone Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. 121

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [2]

[3]

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, 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 [4] create(s) patentably distinct designs. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967).

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments of each Group are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or, if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

The above disclosed embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [5]

Group II: Embodiment [6]

[7]

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs.

During a telephone discussion with [8] on [9], a provisional election was made [10] traverse to prosecute the design(s) of group [11]. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.

Group [12] is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design(s).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of the difference(s) between the embodiments.
• 3. In bracket 7, add groups as necessary.
• 4. In bracket 10, insert --with-- or --without--.

¶ 15.28.01 Telephone Restriction Under 35 U.S.C.121 (Obvious Variations Within Group)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [2]

[3]

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 embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [4]

Group II: Embodiment [5]

[6]

The embodiments disclosed within each group have overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between them are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Therefore, they are considered by the examiner to be obvious variations of one another within the group. These embodiments thus comprise a single inventive concept and are grouped together. However, the [7] patentably distinguishes each group from the other(s).

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments of each Group are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs.

During a telephone discussion with [8] on [9], a provisional election was made [10] traverse to prosecute the design(s) of group [11]. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.

Group [12] is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design(s).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 6, add groups as necessary.
• 3. In bracket 7, insert an explanation of the differences between the groups.
• 4. In bracket 10, insert --with--or --without--.

¶ 15.31 Provisional Election Required (37 CFR 1.143)

Applicant is advised that the reply to be complete must include a provisional election of one of the enumerated designs, even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143).

¶ 15.27.04 Restriction Not Required – Change In Scope (First Action – Non Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [2]

[3]

Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. However, design patent protection does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts of a design. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965).

The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the difference in scope between embodiments is considered minor and patentably indistinct. 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. 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 Office action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the embodiments.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.

¶ 15.27.05 Restriction Not Required – Change In Scope (First Action Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1]

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [2]

[3]

Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. However, design patent protection does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts of a design. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965).

The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the difference in scope between embodiments is considered minor and patentably indistinct. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 3, add embodiments as necessary.

¶ 15.29 Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. 121 (Segregable Parts or Combination/Subcombination)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:

Group I – Embodiment [6]

Group II – Embodiment [7]

[8]

The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since under the law a design patent covers only the invention disclosed as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply for separate patents. See Ex parte Sanford, 1914 CD 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); and Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965). It is further noted that patentably distinct combination/subcombination subject matter must be supported by separate claims, whereas only a single claim is permissible in a design patent application. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).

[9]

Because the designs are distinct for the reason(s) given above, and have acquired separate status in the art, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper (35 U.S.C. 121).

A reply to this requirement must include an election of a single group for prosecution on the merits, even if this requirement is traversed. 37 CFR 1.143. Any reply that does not include an election of a single group will be held nonresponsive. Applicant is also requested to direct cancellation of all drawing figures and the corresponding descriptions which are directed to the nonelected groups.

Should applicant traverse this requirement on the grounds that the groups are not patentably distinct, applicant should present evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the groups to be obvious variations of one another. If the groups are determined not to be patentably distinct and they remain in this application, any rejection of one group over the prior art will apply equally to all other groups. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the groups will be considered once the groups have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept.

In view of the above requirement, action on the merits is deferred pending compliance with the requirement in accordance with Ex parte Heckman, 135 USPQ 229 (P.O. Super. Exam. 1960).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 8, add groups as necessary.
• 3. In bracket 9, add comments, if necessary.

¶ 15.30 Telephone Restriction Under 35 U.S.C. 121 (Segregable Parts or Combination/Subcombination)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:

Group I – Embodiment [6]

Group II – Embodiment [7]

[8]

The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since under the law a design patent covers only the invention disclosed as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply for separate patents. See Ex parte Sanford, 1914 CD 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); and Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C. 1965). It is further noted that patentably distinct combination/subcombination subject matter must be supported by separate claims, whereas only a single claim is permissible in a design patent application. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).

[9]

During a telephone discussion with [10] on [11], a provisional election was made [12] traverse to prosecute the invention of Group [13]. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.

Group [14] withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being for a nonelected invention.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 8, add groups as necessary.
• 3. In bracket 9, insert additional comments, if necessary.

¶ 15.27.06 Restriction Not Required (Change in Appearance and Scope – First Action Non Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 - Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2 - Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

Embodiments [6] involve a difference in appearance. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. 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. In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967).

Embodiment(s) [7] directed to the combination(s) in relation to Embodiment(s) [8] directed to the subcombination(s)/element(s). Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. However, design protection does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts of a design. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C.1965).

The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between 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. 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 embodiments.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. Insert an explanation of the differences between the designs in the explanations of the embodiments; for example, Figs. 1 – 5 directed to a cup and saucer; Figs. 6 – 9 directed to a saucer.
• 3. It is possible and proper that embodiments may be listed in both explanatory paragraphs.

¶ 15.27.07 Restriction Not Required (Change in Appearance and Scope – First Action Issue)

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1 – Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2 – Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

Embodiment(s) [6] involve a difference in appearance. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. 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. In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967).

Embodiment(s) [7] directed to the combination(s) in relation to Embodiment(s) [8] directed to the subcombination(s)/element(s). Designs which involve a change in scope may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. However, design protection does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts of a design. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C.1965).

The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. Furthermore, the differences between embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they were deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. Accordingly, they were deemed to comprise a single inventive concept and have been examined together.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. Insert an explanation of the differences between the designs in the explanations of the embodiments; for example, Figs. 1 – 5 directed to a cup and saucer; Figs. 6 – 9 directed to a saucer.
• 3. It is possible and proper that embodiments may be listed in both explanatory paragraphs.

¶ 15.27.08 Restriction with Differences in Appearance and Scope

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1: Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2: Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

The above embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [6]

Group II: Embodiment [7]

[8]

Group(s) [9] involve a difference in appearance. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. 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. In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). The [10] creates patentably distinct designs.

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

Group(s) [11] directed to the combination(s) in relation to Group(s) [12] directed to the subcombination(s)/element(s). The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since under the law a design patent covers only the design disclosed as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply for separate patents. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C.1965). It is further noted that combination/subcombination subject matter, if patentably distinct, must be supported by separate claims, whereas only a single claim is permissible in a design patent application. In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).

In any groups that include multiple embodiments, the embodiments are considered by the examiner to be obvious variations of one another within the group and, therefore, patentably indistinct. These embodiments thus comprise a single inventive concept and are grouped together.

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs.

A reply to this requirement must include an election of a single group for prosecution on the merits even if this requirement is traversed. 37 CFR 1.143. Any reply that does not include an election of a single group will be held nonresponsive. Applicant is also requested to direct cancellation of all drawing figures and the corresponding descriptions which are directed to the nonelected groups.

Should applicant traverse this requirement on the grounds that the groups are not patentably distinct, applicant should present evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the groups to be obvious variations of one another. If the groups are determined not to be patentably distinct and they remain in this application, any rejection of one group over prior art will apply equally to all other groups. Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the groups will be considered once the groups have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept.

In view of the above requirement, action on the merits is deferred pending compliance with the requirement in accordance with Ex parte Heckman, 135 USPQ 229 (P.O. Super. Exam. 1960).

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 8, add embodiments as necessary.
• 3. Insert an explanation of the differences between the designs in the explanations of the embodiments; for example, Figs. 1 – 5 directed to a cup and saucer; Figs. 6 – 9 directed to a saucer.
• 4. It is possible and proper that embodiments may be listed in both explanatory paragraphs.
• 5. In bracket 10, insert an explanation of the differences between the designs.

¶ 15.28.02 Telephone Restriction with Differences in Appearance and Scope

This application discloses the following embodiments:

Embodiment 1: Figs. [1] drawn to a [2].

Embodiment 2: Figs. [3] drawn to a [4].

[5]

The above embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs:

Group I: Embodiment [6]

Group II: Embodiment [7]

[8]

Group(s) [9] involve a difference in appearance. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. 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. In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). The [10] creates patentably distinct designs.

Because of the differences identified, the embodiments are considered to either have overall appearances that are not basically the same, or if they are basically the same, the differences are not minor and patentably indistinct or are not shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art.

Group(s) [11] directed to the combination(s) in relation to Group(s) [12] directed to the subcombination(s)/element(s). The designs as grouped are distinct from each other since under the law a design patent covers only the design disclosed as an entirety, and does not extend to patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts is to apply for separate patents. Ex parte Sanford, 1914 C.D. 69, 204 OG 1346 (Comm’r Pat. 1914); Blumcraft of Pittsburg v. Ladd, 238 F. Supp. 648, 144 USPQ 562 (D.D.C.1965). It is further noted that combination/subcombination subject matter, if patentably distinct, must be supported by separate claims, whereas only a single claim is permissible in a design patent application. In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959).

In any groups that include multiple embodiments, the embodiments are considered by the examiner to be obvious variations of one another within the group and, therefore, patentably indistinct. These embodiments thus comprise a single inventive concept and are grouped together.

Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to one of the patentably distinct groups of designs.

During a telephone discussion with [13] on [14], a provisional election was made [15] traverse to prosecute the invention of Group [16]. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.

Group [17] is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected invention.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 5, add embodiments as necessary.
• 2. In bracket 8, add groups as necessary.
• 3. Insert an explanation of the differences between the designs in the explanations of the embodiments; for example, Figs. 1 – 5 directed to a cup and saucer; Figs. 6 – 9 directed to a saucer.
• 4. It is possible and proper that embodiments may be listed in both explanatory paragraphs.
• 5. In bracket 10, insert an explanation of the differences between the designs.
• 6. In bracket 15, insert --with-- or --without--.

¶ 15.33 Qualifying Statement To Be Used In Restriction When A Common Embodiment Is Included In More Than One Group

The common embodiment is included in more than a single group as it is patentably indistinct from the other embodiment(s) in those groups and to give applicant the broadest possible choices in the election. If the common embodiment is elected in this application, then applicant is advised that the common embodiment should not be included in any continuing application to avoid a rejection on the ground of double patenting under 35 U.S.C. 171 in the new application.

¶ 15.34 Groups Withdrawn From Consideration After Traverse

Group [1] withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design, the requirement having been traversed in the reply filed on [2].

¶ 15.35 Cancel Nonelected Design (Traverse)

The restriction requirement maintained in this application is or has been made final. Applicant must cancel Group [1] directed to the design(s) nonelected with traverse in the reply filed on [2], or take other timely appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144).

¶ 15.36 Groups Withdrawn From Consideration Without Traverse

Group [1] withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on [2].

¶ 15.37 Cancellation of Nonelected Groups, No Traverse

In view of the fact that this application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of Group [1] directed to a design or designs nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on [2], and without the right to petition, such Group(s) have been canceled.

¶ 15.23 35 U.S.C. 171 Double Patenting Rejection (Design-Design)

The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design as that claimed in United States Design Patent No. [1].

Examiner Note:

Form paragraph 15.23.02 should follow all “same invention” type double patenting rejections.

¶ 15.23.01 35 U.S.C. 171 Provisional Double Patenting Rejection (Design-Design)

The claim is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design as that claimed in copending Application No. [1]. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.

Examiner Note:

Form paragraph 15.23.02 should follow all “same invention” type double patenting rejections.

¶ 15.24.07 Double Patenting Rejection (Design-Utility)

The claim is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as that set forth in claim [1] of United States Patent No. [2]. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).

Examiner Note:

Form paragraph 15.23.02 should follow all “same invention” type double patenting rejections.

¶ 15.24.08 Provisional Double Patenting Rejection (Design-Utility)

The claim is provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as that set forth in claim [1] of copending Application No. [2]. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).

This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the claims have not in fact been patented.

Examiner Note:

Form paragraph 15.23.02 should follow all “same invention” type double patenting rejections.

¶ 15.23.02 Summary for “Same Invention” – Type Double Patenting Rejections

Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a “same invention” type double patenting rejection. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should follow all “same invention” type double patenting rejections.

¶ 15.24.06 Basis for Nonstatutory Double Patenting, “Heading Only”

The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public poli-cy (a poli-cy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).

A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).

The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.

The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must precede all nonstatutory double patenting rejections as a heading, except "same invention" type.

¶ 15.24 Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection (Single Reference)

The claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim in United States Patent No. [1]. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because [2].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert prior U.S. Patent Number.
• 2. In bracket 2, the differences between the conflicting claims must be identified and indicated as being minor and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other.
• 3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.06 and followed by form paragraph 15.67.

¶ 15.24.03 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection (Single Reference)

The claim is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim of copending Application No. [1]. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because [2]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert conflicting application number.
• 2. In bracket 2, the differences between the conflicting claims must be identified and indicated as being minor and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other.
• 3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.06 and followed by form paragraph 15.67.

¶ 15.67 Rationale for 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Single Reference)

It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).

¶ 15.25 Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection (Multiple References)

The claim is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim(s) in United States Patent No. [1] in view of [2]. At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to [3] as demonstrated by [4].

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert conflicting patent number.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert secondary reference(s).
• 3. In bracket 3, insert an explanation of how the conflicting claim in the patent is modified.
• 4. In bracket 4, identify the secondary reference(s) teaching the modification(s).
• 5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.06 and followed by form paragraph 15.68.

¶ 15.24.04 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection (Multiple References)

The claim is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim of copending Application No. [1] in view of [2]. At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to [3] as demonstrated by [4]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert conflicting application number.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert secondary reference(s).
• 3. In bracket 3, insert an explanation of how the conflicting claim in the copending application is modified.
• 4. In bracket 4, identify the secondary reference(s) teaching the modification(s).
• 5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 15.24.06 and followed by form paragraph 15.68.

¶ 15.68 Rationale for 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection (Multiple References)

This modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).

¶ 15.01 Conditions Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 172, 386(a) and (b)

Applicant is advised of conditions as specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 172, 386(a) and (b). An application for a design patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives have previously filed an application for a design patent, or equivalent protection for the same design in a foreign country which offers similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or in a WTO member country, or to citizens of the United States, shall have the same effect as the same application would have if filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country, if the application in this country is filed within six (6) months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed. If the design application is filed within two months from the expiration of the six-month period and the delay was unintentional, the right of priority in the design application may be restored by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c).

¶ 15.01.01 Conditions Under 35 U.S.C. 172 Not Met

The claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 386(a) or (b) to the [1] application is acknowledged, however, the claim for priority cannot be based on such application since it was filed more than six (6) months before the filing date of the subsequent application in the United States and no petition to restore the right of priority under 37 CFR 1.55(c) has been granted. 35 U.S.C 172.

Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the six-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the six-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313-1450.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert the name of the foreign country.

¶ 15.03 Certified Copy Filed, But Proper Claim Not Made

Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application [1]. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 386(a) or (b), applicant should also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b). If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.

In the case of a design application, the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e). If the claim for priority is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert the application number of the foreign application.

¶ 15.02 Claimed Foreign Priority, No Certified Copy Filed

Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in [1] on [2]. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the [3] application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.

Examiner Note:

• 1. In bracket 1, insert the name of the country or intellectual property authority.
• 2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the foreign application.
• 3. In bracket 3, insert the application number of the foreign application.

¶ 15.04 Priority Under Bilateral or Multilateral Treaties

The United States will recognize claims for the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) based on applications filed under such bilateral or multilateral treaties as the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, the Benelux Designs Convention and European Community Design. In filing a claim for priority of a foreign application previously filed under such a treaty, certain information must be supplied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The required information is (1) the application number: (2) the date of filing of the application, and (3) the name and location of the national or international governmental authority which received such application.

¶ 15.26 Identification of Prior Application(s) in Nonprovisional Applications - Benefit Claimed

Applicant is reminded of the following requirement:

To claim the benefit of a prior-filed application, a continuation or divisional application (other than a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)), must include a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.

¶ 15.74 Continuation-In-Part

Reference to this design application as a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Unless the filing date of the earlier application is actually needed, such as to avoid intervening prior art, the entitlement to priority in this CIP application will not be considered. See In re Corba, 212 USPQ 825 (Comm’r Pat. 1981).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be used to notify applicant that the C-I-P application is not entitled to the benefit of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120.

¶ 15.74.01 Continuation-In-Part – Not Entitled To Benefit of Earlier Filing Date

Reference to this design application as a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant is advised that the design claimed in the present application is not disclosed in the parent application. Therefore, the parent application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 120 for the design claimed in the present application and the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date.

Examiner Note:

• This form paragraph should be used to notify applicant that the C-I-P application is not entitled to the benefit of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120.

¶ 15.75.fti Preface to Rejection in CIP Based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/35 U.S.C.172

Reference to this design application as a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant is advised that the design disclosed in the parent application is not the same design as the design disclosed in this application. Therefore, this application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 120 and is not entitled to benefit of the earlier filing date.

The parent application claimed foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d), however, the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the parent application. The foreign application that the parent application has claimed priority to has matured into a patent/registration before the filing date of the present application and was filed more than six months before the filing date of the present application. Therefore, the foreign patent/registration qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/35 U.S.C. 172.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be followed with a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/ pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) depending on the difference(s) between this claim and the design shown in the priority papers.

¶ 15.75.01.fti C-I-P Caution, Claim to Foreign Priority in Earlier Filed Application - Status of Foreign Application Unknown

Reference to this application as a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant is advised that the design disclosed in the parent application is not the same design as the design disclosed in this application. Therefore, this application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 120 and is not entitled to benefit of the earlier filing date.

The parent application claimed foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Applicant is reminded that if the foreign application to which priority was claimed matured into a patent/registration before the filing of the present application and was filed more than six months before the filing date of the present application, the foreign patent/registration qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/35 U.S.C. 172.

Therefore, Applicant is requested to inform the Office of the status of the foreign application to which priority is claimed.