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
Introduction In 2024, a full one third of all issued design patents received at least one non-final rejection during prosecution (46,589 issued, 15,425 non-final rejections). The most frequent rejections were for failure to properly disclose depth of certain design elements, drawing inconsistencies, and improper use or description of broken lines.
This design patent application highlights how the LKQ v. GM en banc decision emphasized the requirement of a record-supported reason for combining references and that the combination of prior art references must achieve the claimed design. The applicant’s success lay not only in identifying specific design differences but also in articulating how
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