Applicant claimed an ornamental design for a Litter Box, with representative Figure 1 as follows: The examiner rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (anticipation) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The claim also was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to drawing inconsistencies. The anticipation rejection was
USD1,054,889 – Issue Date: December 24, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, A and B paragraphs, as the claimed invention was not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
USD1,053,376 – Issue Date: December 3, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under Section 103 as being obvious in light of a combination of the EU Patent No. 006629317-0005 (“Therabody”) and Chinese Patent No. 306055743 (“Zheng”). The rejection was based on similarities between the “Therabody” reference and the
USD1,055,187 – Issue Date: December 24, 2024 Key Point: The analysis for obviousness-type double patenting is similar but not identical to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Three differences are that obviousness-type double patenting (1) compares claimed subject matter to claims in an earlier patent or patent application
The first step is entering a search term in the search bar. For example, if you receive a rejection based on In re Owens, you may want to research how other design patent applicants have handled similar rejections. To search, type “In re Owens” in the search bar, leave the