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 263 design patents that issued on October 27, 2026 after at least one rejection. As usual, most went from a drawing rejection to replacement sheets to allowance. A few files are worth keeping.
The one to read first is an Abbott icon patent that issued with no display screen in the drawing. The examiner rejected it under 35 USC 171. Counsel added no screen outline, retitled the claim “icon for a display screen or portion thereof,” and relied on the USPTO’s March 13, 2026 supplemental guidance on computer-generated interfaces and icons, and the claim was allowed. Also this week: a continuation that was denied its parent’s date over one plain ring and won it back by redrawing the ring, an allowance pulled back a year after the issue fee was paid, a pre-appeal panel that threw out a three-reference “simple substitution” rejection, and two printed patents that still carry language cancelled during prosecution.
The Week in Numbers
- 263 prosecution histories: 217 in the 29 series, 44 in the 30 series and 2 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 26 months. The range ran from about 9 months to just over 6 years.
- How they got there: 178 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 49 received a final rejection and 42 a Quayle action. 46 had a restriction requirement. 7 drew an advisory action. At least 5 were withdrawn from issue after allowance.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112 in about 206 files. 102 in about 50. 103 in about 15. Double patenting in about 29, including 3 same-design rejections under 35 USC 171.
- Rule 130(a) declarations in about 38 files and Rule 130(b) declarations in 2, most answering the applicant’s own listing, video or post. Rule 132 declarations in 3. Interviews in about 58. One pre-appeal request.
- LKQ v. GM cited in 2 files: once by an applicant, once by an examiner.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 3.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 263 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 icon issues with no display screen in the drawing
The file: Application No. 29/939,067 (icon for a display screen or portion thereof, D1,155,605), an Abbott Diabetes Care divisional of a December 2020 application.
The problem: The title claimed a display screen with an icon, and the broken line statement described a dot-dash screen perimeter, but no screen appeared in the drawing. In a February 2026 action, the examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 171: “a design for a graphical user interface per se is unpatentable since it is not embodied in an article of manufacture.”
The move: Counsel did not add a screen outline. The response changed the title and claim to “icon for a display screen or portion thereof,” deleted the broken line statement, and relied on the USPTO’s Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons (March 13, 2026). As the response quoted it, “the depiction of a display screen or a portion thereof is no longer required when both the title and claim properly identify the article of manufacture.”
The result: Allowed on the May 2026 reply. The patent shows a lone icon, with no screen and no broken lines.
The takeaway: Under the March 2026 guidance, the title and claim can now identify the article, so a drawn screen may not be needed. That avoids the new matter risk of adding a screen outline after filing. Expect accused infringers to test what article this kind of claim covers.
2. A continuation is denied its parent’s date until one ring is redrawn
The file: Application No. 30/042,562 (bird feeder, D1,155,926), a Kiwibit continuation filed January 13, 2026 from Application No. 29/982,531, filed January 7, 2025.
The problem: The parent showed an ornamented ring. The continuation showed the same ring plain. The examiner held that “the unornamented ring at “A” … was not described in the disclosure of the parent application,” required the benefit claim to be changed to a continuation-in-part, and noted that without the parent’s date the applicant’s own later disclosures “are available as prior art.” The claim was then rejected twice under 102(a)(1): over the applicant’s own Amazon listing (October 2025) and over its own Chinese design application (published October 2025), which, counsel noted, claimed priority to the US parent.
The move: Counsel did not defend the plain ring. The drawings were amended so ring “A” was “modified to exactly match the ornamented ring shown in the parent,” restoring the January 2025 date. The parent was incorporated by reference.
The result: Both references postdated the restored date. Allowed.
The takeaway: Deleting surface ornament in a continuation is not the same as converting it to broken lines. A plain surface is a disclosure the parent never made. If benefit fails, your own post-parent listings and foreign filings become the art.
3. Quality review finds an earlier Amazon listing a year after the issue fee
The file: Application No. 29/994,301 (line striper, D1,155,616), filed March 20, 2025 by Guangzhou Shifen Technology.
The problem: The examiner allowed the case in May 2025 while citing an Amazon listing of the same product dated after the filing date, and the issue fee was paid. A year later, “During a spot random review the office found an earlier date of 12/10/2024” for a second listing of the same product. The Office withdrew the application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b) and the examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1).
The move: Counsel conceded the product was the same design and filed a Rule 130(a) declaration from the inventor stating the listing “was obtained directly from me.” The exhibits included the Amazon listing email, order and inventory screenshots, the store’s legal-entity page, the reseller’s business license and a signed sales authorization from the inventor to the third-party store.
The result: The examiner found that the applicant “has provided reasonable proof to support their declaration” and withdrew the rejection. The patent issued this week.
The takeaway: Amazon often lists the same product under several ASINs with different dates. Check them all before allowance, and when a separate company sells the product, build the inventor-to-seller authorization chain early. This exhibit list is a good template.
4. A pre-appeal panel withdraws a three-reference “simple substitution” rejection
The file: Application No. 29/945,056 (keypad, D1,155,512), a Crestron continuation filed May 31, 2024.
The problem: Almost everything was in broken lines. The claim was essentially a trim strip with an actuator and a light pipe. The examiner made a 102 rejection and a 103 rejection on the same primary reference in the first action, a second non-final added a third reference, and a final 103 rested on all three. The final cited LKQ but still paired a visually similar primary reference with modifications the examiner called “simple substitutions” of known design elements, and said a secondary reference was proper because its split matched the claimed location: “had Kasa shown the split to be on the side of the bezel, then Kasa would not be considered a proper teaching reference.”
The move: Counsel turned the examiner’s own 103 admissions against the 102, framed the design as an asymmetric pair (a long actuator next to a small wedge-shaped light pipe) that no reference showed, and argued the secondary reference split a button from its frame, not two trim elements. After the final, counsel filed a notice of appeal with a pre-appeal brief request.
The result: The panel checked “Reopen Prosecution” and withdrew the rejection. No new art rejection followed. The reasons for allowance point to “the proportions and asymmetric configuration of the actuator and the light pipe.”
The takeaway: A pre-appeal request is worth filing when an examiner cites LKQ but still runs the old analysis. Location matching in a secondary reference is not a reason to combine.
5. A review date on your own website, shared across three products, does not date the new one
The file: Application No. 29/935,052 (razor handle, D1,155,909), filed March 29, 2024 by Athena Club Holdings.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over the applicant’s own product page for the Mini Razor and dated it June 2, 2022. The affidavit traced that date to a customer review on the page.
The move: Counsel used no grace period argument and no Rule 130 declaration. A Rule 132 affidavit from the company’s head of special projects explained that the site combined the reviews for three products into one review group, so “any reviews bearing a date before the launch of the Mini Razor would have necessarily been a review for other products.” The affidavit also swore the Mini Razor was not shown or sold before filing, and attached screenshots taken while the reviews were being separated.
The result: The examiner accepted that “the date cited in the 102(a)(l) rejection is incorrect because it came from a combined listing of reviews for multiple products.” Allowed.
The takeaway: A review date is a weak proxy for availability. When reviews are pooled across products or variants, a fact declaration from the person who controls the site can remove the reference outright.
6. Image metadata does not beat an Amazon date, but WeChat posts and a trade show do
The file: Application No. 29/942,338 (smart home gym, D1,155,703), filed May 15, 2024 by Xiamen Renhe Sports Equipment.
The problem: The claim was rejected under 102(a)(1) over a third-party Amazon listing dated September 15, 2023.
The move: Counsel first attacked the date. Using browser tools, the response showed the relied-on images were “last modified or uploaded on August 12, 2024, which is after the effective filing date.” The examiner made the rejection final: “Absolute proof that the webpage was never modified is not required.” Counsel then switched to a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration showing earlier disclosures by the applicant and its people: WeChat Moments posts by personnel associated with the applicant from May 23, 2023, an article on the applicant’s own WeChat account about the product’s debut at the 2023 China Sport Show, proof the account belongs to the applicant, and a government page confirming the show dates.
The result: The declaration overcame the rejection. Allowed.
The takeaway: Image metadata alone will not move an examiner off a listing date. An earlier disclosure by the applicant or its people, proven through account ownership and an independent source for the event date, will. Note how close it was: the WeChat posts came less than a year before the US filing date.
7. A missing claim sentence moves the filing date past the priority deadline
The file: Application No. 29/955,975 (insect trap hanger, D1,155,744), filed by an individual applicant claiming priority to a Mexican application of February 6, 2024.
The problem: The papers arrived August 5, 2024, one day inside the six-month priority period, but without a claim. The Office accorded “a filing date of August 27, 2024, the date of receipt of at least one claim,” which put the application past the deadline.
The move: Rather than fight the filing date, counsel petitioned under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority, with the $840 fee and a statement of unintentional delay. The late date fell “within two months from the expiration” of the six-month period.
The result: The petition was granted. The application then worked through an indefinite title (“industrial model”), struck functional language and a Quayle action before allowance.
The takeaway: A design application with no claim has no filing date. Check for the claim sentence before filing at a deadline. If it is missed, restoration under Rule 1.55(c) can save priority, at the cost of a fee and an “unintentional” statement in the record.
8. A same-design rejection under 171, cured by a terminal disclaimer
The file: Application No. 29/973,870 (bag, D1,155,203), filed November 19, 2024 by Louis Vuitton Malletier.
The problem: After allowance, the Office withdrew the case from issue to reopen prosecution. The examiner then wrote: “The claim is rejected under 35 USC 171 on the ground of double patenting since it is claiming the same design” as the applicant’s own D1,115,317. The heading read “Nonstatutory Double Patent Rejection,” and the boilerplate invited a terminal disclaimer.
The move: Counsel filed a terminal disclaimer “Without comment as to the merits of the rejection.”
The result: The examiner accepted the disclaimer and withdrew the rejection. Allowed.
The takeaway: Same-design double patenting under 171 is statutory. A terminal disclaimer does not cure it (MPEP 1504.06). The record here still reads “same design.” When a rejection mixes the two doctrines, argue the differences on the record, or ask the examiner to recast it as obviousness-type before filing the disclaimer.
9. Two patents issue with language cancelled to get them allowed
The file: Application No. 29/978,343 (bag, D1,155,201), filed December 12, 2024 by Valentino, and Application No. 30/003,305 (display screen with graphical user interface, D1,155,573), filed May 12, 2025 by IGT.
The problem: In the Valentino case, the examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 112(b) because of the sentence “The design can be made in or of any color, shade, finish, material, or combination thereof,” which “suggests an infinite number of appearances while only one is reflected in the drawings.” In the IGT case, the examiner rejected a transitional statement covering “any two or more of the images” because “it is not clear which or how many of the thousands of combinations of figures are being claimed.”
The move: Valentino deleted the sentence. IGT struck “In certain embodiments” and “any two or more of the” from the transitional statement. In Valentino, the examiner wrote, “The indefinite statement has been cancelled therefore this rejection is withdrawn.”
The result: Both patents print the cancelled text. The Valentino patent still says the design “can be made in or of any color, shade, finish, material, or combination thereof.” The IGT patent reads “The The appearance of the images sequentially transition between any-two-or-more-of-the images,” with the strikethrough apparently printed as hyphens.
The takeaway: Proof every issued patent against the allowed specification. Where a deleted sentence was the basis of a 112 rejection, get a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.322 before enforcing. Also, the “any color or material” and “any two or more images” forms both draw 112 rejections.
10. Nine sets of “callout” figures become nine restricted partial designs
The file: Application No. 29/891,774 (camera, D1,155,639), filed May 9, 2023 by Axon Enterprise.
The problem: The application was filed with a full embodiment, nine sets of “callout” figures that each redraw the whole camera to highlight one feature or group of features, and an alternate configuration. The specification said “design inventive aspects exist in depicted elements and regions as bounded by their vanishing points” and reserved the right to claim any callout later. The examiner treated each callout set as a patentably distinct embodiment (“Embodiment 2 – Figs. 9A-16 – one small upper circular feature is claimed”), restricted the case into eleven groups, and required deletion of the vanishing point and reservation paragraphs.
The move: Counsel elected the full camera without traverse, accepted the specification rewrites, and removed Axon’s own YouTube video with a Rule 130(a) declaration.
The result: Allowed on the full camera, with a plain broken line statement.
The takeaway: The callout sets did their work as figures, not as text. Each is written description support for a partial claim, and the examiner confirmed each is a distinct design. A divisional filed before issue could carry the May 2023 date; this file does not show one. The examiner’s reason for striking the reservation language is worth keeping: the right to raise or lower elements “from solid lines to broken lines” already exists.
Honorable Mentions
- 29/909,999 (tamper evident bag, D1,155,368): withdrawn from issue and required to claim continuation-in-part status for added boundary lines, which made the applicant’s own May 31, 2023 web page prior art and required a Rule 130(a) declaration.
- 29/874,589 and 29/874,591 (Milwaukee battery packs): grace period declarations failed until a declaration, filed with a continued prosecution application, named the June 28, 2022 press event and attached two documents handed out there.
- 29/928,050 (still air box, D1,155,853): the applicant’s own product page, now showing the new design, was dated from a December 2022 review of the older design. Two Wayback captures and a dated marketing email in a Rule 132 declaration removed it.
- 29/906,926 (Safariland mount, D1,155,727): a review of an older product sold under the same name dated the reference. A Wayback capture and an inventor declaration showed the new design went online later.
- 29/964,969 (Meta charging dock, D1,155,471): after an interview, a common ownership statement under 102(b)(2)(C) cleared the applicant’s own earlier-filed design patent from a final 103 rejection.
- 30/028,006 (Acushnet golf bag, D1,155,216): a single side view of a three-dimensional bag survived 35 USC 112 on In re Maatita alone.
- 29/902,413 (Secrid coin pocket, D1,155,208): five filed figures became fourteen, supported only by the appendix filed with the application, with no new matter rejection.
- 29/852,977 (NOCO battery charger, D1,155,464): a same-design double patenting rejection over the applicant’s own D981,337 dropped away after part of the design was converted to broken lines, with no terminal disclaimer.
Enforcement Watch
Certificates of correction needed. The Valentino and IGT patents (No. 9) print language the Office held indefinite and the applicants cancelled. Until corrected, an accused infringer can point to the Office’s own reasoning.
A “same design” finding on the record. The Louis Vuitton patent (No. 8) rests on a terminal disclaimer against a rejection that called the two claims the same design. That is the opening for a 171 invalidity defense, and the patent is tied to D1,115,317 for term and common ownership.
A priority date that rests on restoration. The insect trap hanger (No. 7) claims priority only through a restored right of priority. The decision states that the grant should not be read as a finding that the application is entitled to priority on the merits.
Benefit that depends on matching drawings. The bird feeder (No. 2) keeps its January 2025 date only because its figures were amended to match the parent’s ring. A validity challenge will start by laying the two sets of drawings side by side.
Sworn dates and distribution chains. The line striper (No. 3) carries an inventor’s sworn statement and a written sales authorization for a December 2024 Amazon listing. The smart home gym (No. 6) carries sworn May 2023 disclosure dates. The razor handle (No. 5) carries a sworn statement that the product was not shown or sold before March 29, 2024. Each fixes the window an accused infringer will probe.
Scope pinned by reasons for allowance. The Crestron keypad (No. 4) was allowed for “the proportions and asymmetric configuration of the actuator and the light pipe,” and counsel’s remarks describe a straight top edge and a wedge-shaped light pipe. Expect those words in a noninfringement brief.
Divisionals to watch. The Axon camera (No. 10) leaves ten restricted groups: nine callout sets and an alternate rear configuration. Any divisional filed before this week’s issue date can carry the May 2023 date; the file does not show one.
What to Take From the Week
- For icons and interfaces, read the March 2026 guidance before adding a screen outline. The title and claim may do the job.
- In a continuation, convert unwanted ornament to broken lines. Do not erase it.
- Check every Amazon listing and ASIN for the earliest date, and assemble the inventor-to-seller authorization before allowance.
- When an examiner cites LKQ but runs the old analysis, consider a pre-appeal request.
- Attack review-based dates with the facts of how the site groups reviews.
- Prove an applicant’s own earlier disclosure with account ownership and an independent source for event dates. Metadata arguments alone did not work.
- Confirm the claim sentence is in every design application filed at a priority deadline.
- Do not answer a 171 same-design rejection with a silent terminal disclaimer.
- Proof every issued patent against the allowed text, especially after deletions made by strikethrough.
- Callout figures filed on day one can support a family of partial claims, if the divisionals are filed before issue. Reservation-of-rights paragraphs add nothing.
