1. Do drawing figures contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should be included.
2. Do drawing figures not contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should not be included.
3. Does the broken line statement (BLS) expressly identify what is represented by each type of broken line? That is required.
4. Does the BLS define the relationship between what is represented by the broken lines and the claimed design? That is required.
5. Does the BLS contain the phrase “for illustrative purposes only”? Consider eliminating it and rewriting the statement.
6. Does the BLS identify the broken lines as environment with no further description? Consider further describing the broken lines as environment to the [title].
7. Is one type of broken line identified as having multiple identities? That is improper. Each type of broken line must have only one identity, e.g., portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design, environment to the article, boundaries of the claim.
8. Does the BLS correctly name the title of the article instead of just the generic term “article”? That is required by many examiners.
9. Does the BLS include the phrase “illustrate unclaimed features”? Consider removing it.
10. Do the broken lines in the BLS represent (1) portions of an article that form no part of the claimed design, (2) environment to the article, (3) boundary lines, (4) stitch lines, (5) fold lines, (6) perforations, or (7) other surface indicia? That is permitted.
11. Do the broken lines in the BLS (1) indicate the relative importance of design portions, (2) show hidden planes and surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque surfaces, or (3) show alternative positions of a design? That is not permitted.
12. Have either solid or broken lines been completely removed from the drawing figures in response to a rejection? That is generally not permitted and is considered new matter.
13. Have shade lines been removed from unclaimed surfaces shown in broken lines? That is required.
14. Is it clear whether areas adjacent to broken line boundaries are claimed or not claimed by using shade lines or description in the BLS? That is required.
15. If broken lines are used to show the boundaries of enlarged areas, are the identity and relationship of the broken lines properly described and is the boundary box or circle in broken lines?
16. If broken lines are used to show sectional views, is the sectional view necessary to show or clarify the exact contour or configuration of the exterior surface of a claimed design and are the identity and relationship of the broken hatch lines and arrows properly described?
17. Does the BLS include the statement that solid lines represent the claimed design? If so, consider removing it as it is inferred that solid lines represent the claimed design.
18. Are broken lines used for shading in the drawing figures? If so, consider removing it as broken lines should not be used for shading to illustrate the three-dimensional configuration of claimed portions of the design.
19. Does the BLS contain a broadening statement to the effect that “[a]ny combination or sub-combinations of features, whether in solid lines or in broken lines, is within the scope of the designs.” If so, consider removing it as broadening statements are not permitted.
20. Is the BLS placed between the figure descriptions and the claim? That is the proper place for it.
21. Does the BLS contain redundant language such as the phrase “unclaimed subject matter” and “that forms no part of the claimed design”? Consider removing the phrase “unclaimed subject matter as that is redundant.
22. Does the BLS contain the phrase “in which the design is embodied”? Consider removing it because it can be interpreted that the design is embodied in broken line features.
23. Does the BLS follow the conventional use of dash-dash broken lines for portions of the [title] that form no part of the claimed design or unclaimed environment to the [title] and dash-dot broken lines for unclaimed boundaries? Some examiners prefer following the conventions.
24. Does the BLS state that broken lines form no part of the claimed design rather than stating that broken lines show portions of the [title] that form no part of the claimed design? Consider putting in the phrase “show portions of the [title] that.”
25. Do the drawing figures use different style of broken lines (such as thick and thin)? If so, then the BLS should distinguish between them.
26. Does the BLS use the term “phantom lines”? Consider removing it as “phantom lines” has no meaning in current United States design practice or in the MPEP.
27. Does the BLS contain language such as “in the current drawing figures” or “in the drawings”? Consider removing the language as it may be unnecessary.
28. Does the BLS describe what is not shown in the drawings as forming no part of the claimed design? Consider removing such a statement as it is unnecessary and improper.
29. Does the BLS describe the broken lines as being “unclaimed portions” or “unclaimed subject matter?” Consider removing this language since a design does not have any claimed or unclaimed portions. What is shown in broken lines is excluded from the claim, or “forms no part of the claimed design.”
30. Does the BLS use the terms “and” or “which” instead of “that” regarding portions of the [title] that form no part of the claimed design? Consider changing the term to “that” as the clause is restrictive and essential to the meaning of the BLS.
In the Drawing Figures
31. Are the broken lines in the drawing figures short, light (but not too light), and even in length, thickness, and spacing? If not, consider revising the drawing figures.
32. Do any of the broken lines merge into solid lines such that confusion is created as to which lines are broken and which lines are solid? If so, consider revising the drawing figures.
33. Are all the different styles of broken lines shown consistently in all the drawing figures? If not, consider revising the drawing figures for consistency.
34. Is shading included within broken lines in the drawing figures? If so, consider removing it as surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter shown in broken lines to avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim.
35. Are broken lines used to show the relationship between two parts of the claimed design? If so, consider removing it as broken lines may not be used to show the relationship between two parts of the claimed design.
36. Are legends and arrows used to identify claimed and unclaimed portions of the design? If so, consider removing them as it is improper to use legends and arrows used to identify claimed and unclaimed portions of the design.
Please note this post is for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship.
