File wrapper citations in this article link to the documents in ProSearch. A free Design Patent Pro account is all that is needed to open them.
This week’s batch is the 343 design patents that issued on October 20, 2026 after at least one rejection. Most went the usual way: a drawing rejection, replacement sheets, allowance. A few did something worth borrowing.
The one that stands out did not come from counsel. Faced with an undated Amazon listing, an examiner asked Amazon’s own AI shopping assistant for the listing’s “date first available,” got an answer that postdated the filing, and withdrew the rejection on that basis. Also this week: a single plan view of a power tool housing that survived 35 USC 112 under Maatita, a restored priority date that pulled a TikTok video into the grace period, an incorporation-by-reference statement that cured a new matter rejection, and four allowances pulled back after the issue fee was paid.
The Week in Numbers
- 343 prosecution histories: 268 in the 29 series, 70 in the 30 series and 5 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 24 months. The range ran from 9 months to just over 6 years.
- How they got there: 239 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 79 received a final rejection and 33 a Quayle action. 47 had a restriction requirement. 4 drew an advisory action. 4 were withdrawn from issue after the issue fee was paid.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112 in about 280 files. 102 in about 60. 103 in about 35. Double patenting in about 35, including 7 same-design or same-invention rejections that a terminal disclaimer cannot cure.
- Rule 130 declarations in about 45 files, most answering a rejection based on the applicant’s own online listing, video or post. Rule 132 declarations in 2, both treated as Rule 130 declarations. Interviews in about 50. No appeal briefs.
- LKQ v. GM cited in 6 files. Applicants cited it in all 6. Examiners answered it by name in 2.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 1.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 343 histories. One file can carry several grounds, so the categories overlap. The counts come from the OCR’d text of each file, and the smaller figures should be read as approximate.
The Top Ten
1. An examiner asks Amazon’s AI for the date, and the rejection falls
The file: Application No. 29/936,332 (lid for a bottle, D1,154,247), an Air Up divisional of a Hague application with an effective filing date of May 10, 2023.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over an Amazon listing that the examiner dated December 4, 2019. The applicant found no customer review earlier than March 2, 2020.
The move: The applicant attacked the date, not the design. The listing showed no “date first available.” The reviews had no photos. The URL had no Wayback Machine capture. And, the response noted, “Specifically with respect to Amazon.com, ASINs are frequently recycled or repurposed,” so old reviews prove nothing about the product now shown on the page. The applicant also argued that the listing showed too few views to anticipate.
The result: The examiner conceded the date was unreliable, then went further: “The examiner re-visited the webpage for the prior art and utilized Amazon’s AI LLM Rufus to pull the date first available.” Rufus reported December 18, 2024, after the effective filing date, and the examiner withdrew the rejection and put the Rufus answer in the record. The insufficient-views argument did not persuade.
The takeaway: When a listing is dated only by a review, say so, and point out that the ASIN may have carried a different product. At least one examiner has now looked up a listing date with Amazon’s own tools.
2. One plan view of a power tool housing survives 112 under Maatita
The file: Application No. 29/824,096 (power tool, D1,154,273), filed by Evolution Power Tools in January 2022.
The problem: After a restriction among six single-view embodiments, the elected design was a pattern of lines on what the record identifies as a motor housing. The examiner rejected it under 35 USC 112(a) and (b): “In the absence of any additional figures showing the surfaces not disclosed by the single view provided, the disclosure remains indefinite and open to multiple interpretations.”
The move: Counsel added no views. The response relied on In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and argued that the claim “is analogous to the shoe bottom design in Maatita. While the power tool itself is three-dimensional, the ornamental design being claimed is a surface-oriented layout of lines and boundaries.” It also added straight broken boundary lines.
The result: The examiner quoted that sentence back and withdrew the rejection. Allowed.
The takeaway: Maatita is not limited to flat articles. When the claimed portion of a three-dimensional product is really a surface layout, a single plan view can be enough, and arguing it avoids the new matter risk of adding views. It works when the drawing shows no depth. Examiners have distinguished Maatita where shading or contour lines suggested a three-dimensional surface, and a pattern-of-lines claim on a rear bolster went abandoned on that ground (29/704,990).
3. A restored priority date pulls a TikTok video into the grace period
The file: Application No. 29/982,329 (portable display, D1,154,619), filed January 6, 2025, more than six months after its Chinese priority application of June 12, 2024.
The problem: The claim was rejected under 35 USC 103 over two references from late 2023 and early 2024. The inventor’s own design had appeared in a TikTok video posted June 29, 2023 by the account of Marvel Technology, a company the inventor and applicant had authorized to post it.
The move: At filing, the applicant had petitioned under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority, and the petition was granted. That restored June 2024 date is what puts the June 2023 video inside the one-year grace period. The first Rule 130(b) declaration failed: the examiner found that “access to the account which posted the TikTok video does not equate to support for the date” of the video. After final, the applicant filed a new declaration with exhibits: the TikTok printout, screenshots of account records accessible only to the account owner or its authorized representatives, Marvel Technology’s US trademark registration for the mark in the video, and a joint declaration by Marvel Technology, the applicant and the inventor confirming the authorization.
The result: The examiner found the exhibits “have established a chain of events, showing that the disclosure of the claimed design was made by the inventor to the public by way of” Marvel Technology’s TikTok account, and withdrew the rejection.
The takeaway: A US filing made after the priority deadline is not always fatal: restoring priority can rescue the grace period. When the earlier disclosure sits on another company’s social account, prove the whole chain: who controls the account, who owns the mark, and who authorized the post.
4. Incorporation by reference supports a redrawn font
The file: Application No. 29/894,481 (gaming machine display screen with GUI, D1,154,702), an Aristocrat application claiming benefit to utility Application No. 14/823,536.
The problem: The examiner denied benefit because the utility application did not show the same lettering for the word “COLLECTED.” The applicant redrew the font to match Fig. 10B of the utility application. The examiner then rejected the redrawn font as new matter, because “the original drawings show the word illustrated with a geometric visual appearance.”
The move: Counsel pointed out that the design application expressly incorporated the utility application by reference, so its figures were part of the original disclosure.
The result: The examiner agreed: the argument about “the incorporation by reference of the font of the ‘COLLECTED’ text as shown in U.S. Utility Application No. 14/823,536 is found persuasive and overcomes the previous new matter rejection.” Allowed.
The takeaway: In a design application that claims benefit to a utility application, an incorporation-by-reference statement in the application as filed can supply support for a later drawing change, but only for what the incorporated application actually shows. It has to be there on the filing date (see No. 7). In 29/779,132, an incorporation statement was present, yet features the parent did not show were still treated as new matter.
5. Hashed-through tones keep a continuation a continuation
The file: Application No. 29/877,884 (computer display screen with GUI, D1,154,631), a Google continuation in a chain going back to September 25, 2018.
The problem: The new drawing erased gray tonal features that the parent showed in the environment. The examiner held that erasing them would be new matter in the parent, so “This application must be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.” Losing the 2018 date mattered: the claim was also rejected under 35 USC 103 over an August 15, 2018 YouTube video from Google’s own marketing channel.
The move: The examiner offered a way out, and counsel took it: restore the tones but hash them through, with a statement that the hashed-through features form no part of the claim. That kept the continuation and the 2018 date. On the video, a first response that only argued the grace-period exception drew a final rejection. Counsel then filed a CPA with an inventor declaration that the inventors created the GUI shown in the video.
The result: The declaration was titled under Rule 132, but the examiner treated it as a Rule 130(a) attribution declaration under MPEP 717.01(a)(1) and allowed the claim.
The takeaway: To drop environmental or tonal features from a continuation, hash them through rather than erase them, but only for features the parent actually showed. Adding broken or boundary lines the parent did not show is new matter. File the attribution declaration early if you can. Missing that is not fatal: this application won with a declaration filed through a CPA after final, and 29/648,915 won with one filed after final on a showing of good cause.
6. Broken lines, not boundary lines, keep an Apple continuation clear of double patenting
The file: Application No. 30/029,862 (connector, D1,154,530), an Apple continuation in a chain going back to July 2012, examined under the pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions.
The problem: The claimed design came close to Apple’s own D755,724 from the same family. Separately, the examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 112 because the top and bottom surfaces were drawn inconsistently in solid and broken lines.
The move: A preliminary amendment cut 144 parent figures to eight and joined the ends of the solid lines with broken lines rather than boundary lines.
The result: The examiner explained the difference. D755,724 “uses boundary lines to connect the ends of the solid lines, indicating that the surfaces enclosed within the solid lines and boundary lines form part of the claim.” Here, the broken lines indicate “that only the solid line edges form part of the claim and the surfaces between them do not.” No double patenting rejection was made. After a drawing amendment cured the 112 rejection, the reasons for allowance state that the side and front surfaces are claimed and the top and bottom surfaces are not.
The takeaway: In a long family, the choice between a boundary line and a broken line can be what separates two patents, and the examiner may record that distinction surface by surface. Do not count on it. Examiners often treat a boundary-to-broken conversion as de minimis, and Apple’s own sibling connector, 30/027,721, issued subject to a terminal disclaimer.
7. Four allowances pulled back after the issue fee
The files: Application Nos. 29/963,892 and 29/963,659 (devices for measuring blood pressure, D1,154,936 and D1,154,935), 29/983,779 (camera, D1,154,755) and 29/959,555 (hoop earring, D1,154,405).
The problem: Each case was allowed, the issue fee was paid, and the Technology Center Director then withdrew it: “The above-identified application is being withdrawn from issue after payment of the issue fee due to unpatentability of the claim.” In 29/963,892, the first allowance had accepted an incorporation-by-reference sentence added by preliminary amendment. The new action objected to it as new matter: “An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date.” The camera and earring cases drew new 102 rejections over online videos and listings.
The move: The blood pressure cases were resolved by a video interview, title amendments, broken-line conversions and terminal disclaimers, and 29/963,892 also canceled its incorporation statement. The camera applicant traced a YouTuber’s bird feeder camera back to its own factory through the distributor that supplied it. The earring applicant filed a short Rule 130(a) declaration on an authorized Amazon seller.
The result: All four were allowed again.
The takeaway: An allowance is not a patent until it issues, and Director review after the issue fee is real. Put incorporation statements in the application as filed. Docket these cases as live until the issue date.
8. A CIP label “disqualifies” the inventor’s own publication
The file: Application No. 29/932,275 (charger, D1,154,500), filed March 12, 2024 by an inventor without counsel.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim for nonstatutory double patenting over the inventor’s own D1,075,658, and under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over the 2022 publication of the inventor’s own abandoned utility application. Both rejections were made final. In an interview, the examiner told the inventor that “a CIP will not overcome the rejection since the claimed design is not shown in the parent application.”
The move: The inventor relabeled the case anyway, as a continuation-in-part of D1,075,658 (itself described as a CIP of the utility application), argued that the anticipation standard was wrong, and filed a terminal disclaimer.
The result: The examiner withdrew both rejections. The reasons included that the 102 standard “was not appropriate as the claimed design is not identical to the cited reference” and that “the application is now a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. application 17/321,439, effectively disqualifying the references used in the rejections.”
The takeaway: The examiner also found a different overall impression in the proportions, but the two quoted reasons do not hold up. A CIP gets the parent’s date only for what the parent shows, and anticipation asks whether the designs are substantially the same, not identical. Do not rely on an allowance like this one, and do not copy it.
9. Sibling bottle shapes beat double patenting on the merits
The file: Application No. 29/966,975 (bottle, D1,154,357), a Unilever (Conopco) application filed the same day as six sibling bottle applications.
The problem: The examiner made provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections over two of them, reasoning that “it is obvious to a designer with ordinary skill in the art to slightly change the dimensions of a bottle without altering the overall appearance.”
The move: No terminal disclaimer. The applicant set the figures side by side and walked through the differences: silhouette, the slope of the shoulder (“the shoulder region slopes diagonally, reinforcing this directional flow”), base shape, the framing of the front panel, the depth of the side recess and the size of the opening.
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejections: “The amended specification and arguments overcome the objections and rejections of record.”
The takeaway: A terminal disclaimer ties the patents’ terms together and makes each enforceable only while they are commonly owned. A feature-by-feature visual comparison is worth trying first, although differences you clearly rely on to secure allowance can later be read against you in an infringement comparison.
10. Caterpillar turns the examiner’s “typically” against obviousness
The file: Application No. 29/921,163 (motor grader, D1,154,724), filed by Caterpillar in December 2023.
The problem: The examiner found that the only difference from the prior art was a blade stowed with its edges parallel to the ground rather than diagonally. Citing Caterpillar’s own utility publication, the examiner discounted that as the “functional orientation of the blade,” and rejected under 35 USC 102 and 103, relying on the utility cases In re Stevens and In re Japikse for the 103.
The move: Counsel argued that there are many ways to stow a blade, so the orientation is a design choice. Counsel then used the examiner’s own word: “Applicant asserts that since motor grader attachments are “typically” stowed in the diagonal position, it would not have been obvious to stow it in a parallel position.” The response noted that “In re Stevens concerned a utility patent-not a design patent” and cited LKQ‘s requirement of a record-supported reason to modify. A Rule 130(a) declaration and a common-ownership statement removed the utility publication.
The result: All rejections were withdrawn. The reasons for allowance rest on the position and orientation of the blade relative to the wheels.
The takeaway: When an examiner calls a feature functional inside a 102 or 103, ask for evidence that its appearance is dictated by function. If the examiner says the prior art “typically” does it another way, that is evidence for you.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/966,719 (sewing machine, Janome): an Amazon “date first available” of 2009 fell to a declaration explaining that the date belonged to a reused ASIN, and the examiner added that the page had no reviews for more than 16 years.
- Application No. 29/996,643 (smart wallet): Wayback Machine captures of the same URL showed that a 2020 product review was about an earlier version of the product, not the one now pictured.
- Application No. 29/960,040 (cryostat equipment cabinet, Bluefors): a broken-line rectangle around each hole pattern and a gray “washed-out” mask disclaimed everything visible through perforated screens, which the examiner agreed was not new matter.
- Application Nos. 29/972,710 and 29/972,701 (Harman audio products): both were filed with an appendix of about 150 alternate views, later canceled but kept as part of the original filing, and twin filings got different answers on whether “Audio Component” names an article.
- Application No. 29/981,055 (basketball stand): an explanation of line-weight conventions, with no redrawing, cleared drawing objections and a 112 rejection.
- Application No. 30/010,171 (soccer training device): the examiner withdrew a 102(a)(2) rejection over an EU design registration, noting that “Only US Patent documents are eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2)” and that the registration published after the filing date anyway.
- Application No. 29/748,405 (inspection device): an RCE filed in a design case was refused, the petition to treat it as a CPA was dismissed, and a later CPA rescued the case.
- Application No. 29/920,445 (collar tag): after a first response argued the wrong date, benefit to a 2021 utility filing defeated the applicant’s own 2022 web page.
Enforcement Watch
A CIP on the face of the patent that the parent does not support. The charger patent (No. 8) recites continuation-in-part status from an abandoned utility application whose 2022 publication was the cited reference, and the examiner’s own interview summary says the parent does not show the claimed design. Anyone accused under it should start with that publication. The patent is also subject to a terminal disclaimer over D1,075,658.
Continuity that the record and the patent disagree on. In Application No. 29/971,101 (pod, D1,154,233), the examiner accepted a corrected ADS naming a different sibling application as the parent, but the printed patent still recites continuation of the original parent. The effective filing date may need a certificate of correction.
A title the amendment did not reach. In 29/963,659 (No. 7), the applicant’s remarks say “via finger” was canceled from the title, but the printed title and claim still say “via a finger.”
Scope written down surface by surface. The Apple connector (No. 6) has reasons for allowance identifying which surfaces are claimed. The Air Up lid (No. 1) was allowed because “the contours around the neck in combination with the finger loop are not found in the prior art.” The Caterpillar grader (No. 10) rests on blade position and orientation.
Arguments that will define the sibling bottles. The Unilever bottle (No. 9) avoided a terminal disclaimer by arguing silhouette, shoulder, base, panel and recess differences. Those arguments will shape how this patent and its two siblings are read against an accused bottle.
Broken lines used as contour lines. The two Kao “solid coating” patents, Application Nos. 30/010,908 and 30/010,910, state that “broken fine lines” depict the shape of a three-dimensional surface. That invites a fight over what is claimed. Both were allowed with no stated answer to the 102 rejections or to the examiner’s objection to the word “coating” in the title.
A double patenting rejection that simply disappeared. In the Findlay trash can handle files, Application Nos. 29/941,342 and 29/941,397, provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections over sibling applications drop out of the record with no terminal disclaimer and no explanation.
Sworn listing histories. Application No. 30/009,055 (water filter, D1,154,860) carries a sworn statement that the applicant used the cited Amazon URL for a different product from 2018 and switched the images to the claimed design no earlier than August 2025. The camera patent (No. 7) has a sworn statement that its distributor “acted solely as a distributor.” Both will be the starting point for any dispute over first sale or first disclosure.
What to Take From the Week
- Challenge any Amazon date that rests on a review, and ask whether the ASIN was reused. At least one examiner has checked the date first available with Amazon’s own AI tool.
- For a surface pattern on a three-dimensional product, consider arguing Maatita before adding views, as long as the drawing shows no depth.
- If the US filing misses the priority deadline, look at restoring priority before giving up on the grace period.
- Prove an earlier disclosure on another company’s account with the full chain: account control, mark ownership and a signed authorization.
- Put incorporation-by-reference statements in design applications as filed. They support a later drawing change only for what the incorporated application actually shows.
- In a continuation, hash through features the parent showed that you want to drop. Do not erase them.
- File the attribution declaration early. After final, it can still work with a showing of good cause or through a CPA or RCE.
- Choose deliberately between boundary lines and broken lines in long families. It can help avoid double patenting, but often will not.
- Treat an allowed case as open until the issue date.
- Before filing a terminal disclaimer between sibling designs, try a side-by-side visual argument.
- When an examiner calls a feature functional or “typical,” make the examiner prove it.
