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 466 design patents that issued on October 6, 2026 after at least one rejection. Most of them went the usual way: a drawing rejection, replacement sheets, allowance. A few did something worth borrowing.
The best of them is a DexCom continuation that claims little more than a single line traced from a 2015 parent. When the examiner found new matter a second time, counsel did not redraw. Counsel pointed out that the 2015 drawings used two line weights, heavy for edges and light for contours, and argued from that. The examiner agreed. Also this week: the first allowances we have seen under the March 2026 GUI guidance, an Amazon Seller Support reply that moved a reference forward nearly three years, and a continuation that escaped same-design double patenting by claiming one frame of a patented animation.
The Week in Numbers
- 466 prosecution histories: 365 in the 29 series, 87 in the 30 series and 14 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 25 months. The range ran from 8 months to just over 5 years.
- How they got there: 355 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 64 received a final rejection and 52 a Quayle action. 64 had a restriction requirement. 16 drew an advisory action.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112 in about 360 files. 102 in 75. 103 in 23. Double patenting in 62, including 8 same-design rejections under 35 USC 171 that a terminal disclaimer cannot cure.
- Rule 130 declarations in about 40 files, nearly all answering a 102 rejection based on the applicant’s own online listing or post. Rule 132 declarations in 3. Interviews in 82. No appeal briefs.
- LKQ v. GM cited in 7 files. Applicants cited it in all 7, and in one of them the examiner built the rejection around it as well.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 2.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 466 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. Line weight in a 2015 parent proves possession of a one-line claim
The file: Application No. 29/950,237 (base for medical device electronic module, D1,152,029), a DexCom continuation in a chain that reaches back to a parent filed July 9, 2015 (now D794,801).
The problem: A preliminary amendment reduced the claim to what the examiner called “a noncontinuous perimeter (separated single line).” Because the boundary sat on a contour line rather than a structural edge, the examiner found new matter, required redesignation as a continuation-in-part, and then rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over DexCom’s own 2015 parent. A video interview and a redrawn boundary cleared all of that. Then a second non-final action found “additional instances of new matter, previously overlooked by the examiner”: the new drawings had dropped lines the parent showed.
The move: Counsel did not redraw. The response pointed out that the 2015 figures used two line weights, and that a designer “would understand from the original drawings that the heavyweight solid lines correspond to structural features, and the lightweight solid lines represent CAD-derived contour lines.” The heavy lines had been converted to broken lines. The light lines had been deleted, as MPEP 1503.02 requires for shading on unclaimed subject matter.
The result: The examiner found the remarks “convincing,” withdrew the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and allowed the claim with no further amendment. The companion Application No. 29/950,234 (D1,152,028) went the same way.
The takeaway: Put a carved-out boundary on a structural edge, not on a shade line. And file original drawings with a visible line-weight hierarchy, because years later it can be evidence of what the inventor possessed.
2. The March 2026 GUI guidance rescues a screenless GUI after final
The file: Application No. 29/977,297 (electronic device display screen with graphical user interface, D1,151,653), a COROS transitional GUI with eight images.
The problem: The drawings showed the interface and no screen. The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 171 and suggested adding a broken line around the GUI to represent the display. The applicant changed the title and claim, and added a broken line statement saying “The outermost broken lines depict an electronic device display screen,” but added no line. A final rejection followed on February 26, 2026.
The move: After final, the applicant cited the Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons, 91 FR 12394 (Mar. 13, 2026). The response quoted it: “Drawings are no longer required to depict the article of manufacture in either solid or broken lines” where “both the title and claim properly identify an article of manufacture.” Both already did. The applicant also deleted the sentence describing broken lines that did not exist.
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection, citing the guidance, and allowed. The twin Application No. 29/977,311 (D1,151,654) was allowed the same way.
The takeaway: If a pending GUI case has a 171 rejection for lack of a depicted screen, check the title and claim and cite the guidance. That avoids drawing a speculative screen outline. Also expect an examiner to ask for a translation showing that a foreign priority filing disclosed the same animated sequence, as happened here.
3. Amazon Seller Support re-dates “Date First Available”
The file: Application No. 29/942,332 (water filter kettle, D1,151,020), filed May 15, 2024.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 103 over a Waterdrop water filter pitcher listing on Amazon, dated September 8, 2020 from the listing’s “Date First Available” field, in view of a design patent supplying an opaque body.
The move: The listing was the applicant’s own product. The applicant asked Amazon Seller Support for the earliest upload date of that ASIN and got written confirmation: “Upon verification, the earliest upload date of this SKU is: 2023-05-15.” The inventor’s Rule 130(a) declaration attached the exchange as an exhibit. The response added an argument under MPEP 2128: a seller-controlled listing “may be revised over time,” so its “Date First Available” field “does not reliably establish that the particular appearance and content relied upon in the Office Action were publicly available in that same form” on that date.
The result: The Office found the declaration and evidence “convincing” and withdrew the rejection. The disclosure moved forward about two years and eight months and landed inside the grace period.
The takeaway: When the client controls the listing, ask Amazon for the upload date in writing before arguing about it. A support ticket costs nothing and gives the declaration something to attach.
4. The listing was older than the product
The file: Application No. 29/950,381 (fan, D1,151,910), O2COOL, filed July 2, 2024.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as “clearly anticipated” by the “Treva Bug Fan Fly Deterrent with Adjustable Height” on Amazon and dated it October 21, 2021, a date taken from the listing. On its face the reference predated the application by almost three years.
The move: The applicant showed that the listing and the product were different things. The 2021 date belonged to the “parent” Treva listing. The telescoping fan the examiner relied on had its own ASIN and was added to that listing as a separate style option “only in or after April 2025.” The applicant had captured the same parent page around July 17, 2024 and cited it in its own IDS. That capture showed only a non-telescoping variant under a different ASIN. A declaration labeled as under Rule 130 put these facts on the record.
The result: The examiner was “convinced that the fan with adjustable height is a telescoping variant that was an earliest review date in 2025” and withdrew the rejection.
The takeaway: A review date or “first available” date belongs to the listing, not to every variant later attached to it. Compare ASINs. A screenshot of the competitive landscape taken at filing and cited in an IDS can later prove what was not there.
5. Two spellings of one name cost the priority date until a translation fixed it
The file: Application No. 29/965,870 (mobile phone case having an applied surface texture, D1,150,923), Casetagram (CASETiFY).
The problem: The examiner refused the 35 USC 119(a) priority claim to a Chinese design application because the two filings “have no inventors in common.” The Chinese filing named its designer in Mandarin romanization (surname Wu). The US filing used a different romanization of the same name (surname Ng). Without priority, CASETiFY’s own Amazon listing, posted between the Chinese and US filing dates, became a 102(a)(1) reference, and the Chinese application itself became 102(a)(2) art. The title “Surface Texture” was also refused as naming no article.
The move: The interview agenda put it plainly (“Wu=Mandarin =same name”), and the applicant filed a verified translation of the front page of the certified priority document. On the title, counsel explained that the client really meant an adhesive strip usable on any surface. The examiner said retitling to “strip with surface texture” risked new matter and suggested a continuation for other environments.
The result: Priority was restored and both 102 rejections were withdrawn. After one more Quayle objection, the title became “Mobile Phone Case Having an Applied Surface Texture.”
The takeaway: Before claiming Chinese or Hong Kong priority, compare the romanized names on both filings. And settle the article before filing. It cannot be broadened later.
6. One frame of a patented animation escapes same-design double patenting
The file: Application No. 29/935,943 (display screen with graphical user interface for a video game, D1,151,642), Voodoo, a continuation claiming priority to a 2021 EU registered Community design filing.
The problem: The restriction requirement itself warned that each embodiment “is identical to the design of the parent application.” The applicant elected the first embodiment anyway, and the examiner rejected it under 35 USC 171 as “claiming the same design as that claimed in United States Design Patent No. D993,259.” A terminal disclaimer cannot cure that.
The move: The applicant filed a design CPA with an amendment that read, in full, “Please cancel Figures 2 – 19.” What remained was the first frame of the animated sequence, claimed as a static GUI.
The result: The examiner allowed it by examiner’s amendment with no double patenting rejection of either kind and no terminal disclaimer. The examiner also struck “or portion thereof” from the title because the whole screen was shown inside the device. Two sibling Voodoo files, Application Nos. 29/914,623 (D1,151,634) and 29/923,974 (D1,151,638), did the same. In the second, the examiner had found that a grayscale version of a patented color animation was not patentably distinct.
The takeaway: A single frame is a different design from the sequence that contains it. If an animated GUI is already patented, a continuation can claim a key frame on its own, with its own term.
7. Two shades of gray replace broken lines, and the printed claim changes the article
The file: Application No. 29/933,210 (electric bicycle, D1,151,336).
The problem: The line drawings drew a 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejection: blurry and merged lines, lines ending early, uneven dashes, and elements solid in one view and broken in another.
The move: The applicant replaced every figure with flat-shaded renderings from a 3D CAD model “in two distinct grey scales.” There are no broken lines. The new statement reads: “The lighter grey scale in the drawings illustrate portions of the electric bicycle that form no part of the claimed design.” The applicant also changed the claim to an “electric bicycle frame.”
The result: The examiner withdrew the 112 rejection without a new matter objection. A Quayle action then noted the title and claim no longer matched and asked the applicant to pick “ELECTRIC BICYCLE” or “ELECTRIC BICYCLE FRAME.” The reply kept “frame” in the claim and said the title on the ADS “remains unchanged.” The patent printed with the claim “The ornamental design for an electric bicycle as shown and described.”
The takeaway: A light tonal value can mark unclaimed matter in rendered drawings. But when the Office asks you to choose between two articles, choose one everywhere, and check the printed claim against the last amendment when the patent issues.
8. The prosecuting attorney signs the Rule 130(a) declaration
The file: Application No. 30/001,950 (pet bowl, D1,152,243), Dorai Home, filed April 30, 2025.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over an “Elevated Cat Feeding Station $128 Review” posted on the applicant’s own website on April 11, 2025, nineteen days before filing.
The move: The declaration under Rule 130(a) was signed not by either inventor but by the registered practitioner, who based personal knowledge on “having worked closely for several years with the Applicant and the joint inventors.” It averred that the two inventors founded and own the company, that one ran engineering and design, and that the other ran marketing and approved the published review. The only exhibit was the company’s “about” page.
The result: The examiner accepted it, finding that it “establishes a clear relationship between Applicant to the cited reference and company of distribution,” and allowed the claim.
The takeaway: The Office will accept a Rule 130(a) declaration from a non-inventor with knowledge. It worked here. But the grace-period facts now rest on counsel’s sworn word. In litigation, that makes the prosecuting attorney a fact witness. An inventor’s two-paragraph declaration would have done the same work without that problem.
9. “Market trends” is not a reason to combine
The file: Application No. 29/946,408 (cookware, D1,151,030), YETI, filed June 7, 2024.
The problem: The application was allowed in August 2025. YETI then filed an IDS that included a September 2023 YouTube unboxing video of a “Yeti” skillet made by Butter Pat Industries. The examiner withdrew the indication of allowability and rejected under 102. YETI pointed to the bottom of its pan, and the examiner answered with a 103 rejection adding a circular indentation from an earlier design patent because “it is customary in the industry to follow market trends.”
The move: YETI did not file a Rule 130 declaration. It argued LKQ: the secondary reference shared nothing with the primary except the circle, its other features “would lead even further away,” and its views showed a lid that hid the top. “This is the definition of impermissible hindsight.”
The result: Allowed. The reasons for allowance turn on the bottom portion and add that “The combination of You Tube and Rae does not rely on hindsight to reach the claimed design.” That is presumably the opposite of what the examiner meant.
The takeaway: When the stated motivation is a trend or a custom with nothing in the record to support it, say so and use the word hindsight. And a grace-period video can sometimes be beaten on appearance alone, with no declaration about where the product came from.
10. A CPA gets a refused “shift” amendment examined without a petition
The file: Application No. 29/917,009 (display screen or portion thereof with a graphical user interface, D1,151,635), IGT.
The problem: To get around the art, IGT added two angled lines to one figure and a curved line to the other. The Office refused to enter the amendment, calling it “non-responsive” under MPEP 821.03. Because the original designs “are not complex,” the added lines made the amended figures distinct from the originals and from each other, and “the original claim has been constructively elected by original presentation.”
The move: In an interview with the examiner and the supervisor, counsel asked whether a CPA could follow a first action. The examiner was “not aware of a prohibition” and later suggested a petition or a CPA. IGT filed a CPA with one instruction: “Enter the unentered amendment.”
The result: In the CPA, the examiner entered the amendment, restricted the two amended figures, and allowed the elected one with no new art. The companion Application No. 29/917,020 (D1,151,636) followed the same path.
The takeaway: With a very simple design, even one added line can be a new invention. When a distinguishing amendment is refused as a shift, a design CPA puts it in front of the examiner again without a petition. Expect a restriction to follow.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/924,737 (Apple band, D1,151,597): a third-party news article published eleven days before filing was cleared without any declaration, by argument under both 102(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Apple’s same-day newsroom page attached as an appendix.
- Application No. 29/904,331 (surgical retractor, D1,152,010): against an image-based anticipation rejection, the applicant photographed the actual competing product lying flat to show that the recess seen in the image was an illusion, and the examiner withdrew the rejection.
- Application No. 30/015,609 (shower, D1,151,933): screenshots from the retailer’s back-end SKU system showed a reused product URL, and the record treats counsel’s remarks as a Rule 130 declaration and contains date errors on both sides.
- Application No. 30/000,993 (desktop workstation, D1,150,978): every drawing was replaced before examination because the “Wrong set of drawings have been uploaded and filed,” relying only on the Chinese priority document, and the examiner accepted the new set.
- Application No. 29/963,469 (Aristocrat bingo GUI, D1,151,710): the LKQ argument contained a paragraph from an unrelated case about drinkware, bottle openers and “jersey flags,” and the claim was allowed only after the applicant amended the drawings to claim a circle containing a “5” in each grid.
- Application No. 29/987,145 (instant camera, D1,151,773): a short In re SurgiSil argument that a tablet case cannot anticipate a camera ended a 102 rejection with no visual comparison at all.
- Application No. 35/525,637 (hair styling apparatus, D1,152,188): in a Hague designation, red overlays with the statement “The color red represents portions of the hair styling apparatus that form no part of the claimed design” cured a 112 rejection in place of broken lines.
- Application No. 29/934,497 (slab with pattern, D1,150,922): EUIPO priority was refused because neither the inventor nor the applicant matched (the EU filing named the designer by his nickname and was filed by a related company), and a Rule 132 declaration giving his legal name plus the license and assignment agreements perfected it.
Enforcement Watch
A one-line claim with a 2015 date. The DexCom patents claim very little, and the examiner’s description of one as “a noncontinuous perimeter (separated single line)” is in the file. Their 2015 priority survived a CIP demand and then a second new-matter rejection, the last only through the line-weight argument. A challenger will test the priority chain, because if it breaks, DexCom’s own patents from the 2015 family anticipate. The cited art also lists a stay order from the Munich Regional Court on a related European patent, a sign the product line has seen litigation.
A claim that does not match the last amendment. The electric bicycle patent printed as an “electric bicycle” after the applicant amended the claim to an “electric bicycle frame.” Its scope also turns on where a lighter gray ends, not on a broken line. Both are claim construction questions, and the first may call for a certificate of correction.
Single frames with their own term. The three Voodoo patents each claim one still frame of an animated game screen already patented as a sequence. None carries a terminal disclaimer. An accused interface needs to show only that one screen.
Counsel as declarant. In the pet bowl patent, the only sworn account of the grace-period disclosure comes from the prosecuting attorney. Expect a deposition notice.
A non-assertion clause in the public file. To support a Rule 130(a) declaration, the applicant for Application No. 30/007,686 (compost tumbler, D1,152,297) filed its sales authorization contract with the Amazon seller. The contract includes a “Non-Assertion Clause” providing that any patent filing by the applicant “shall not affect” the seller’s existing lawful business operations. Read supporting documents for what they give away before filing them.
References cited that the record contradicts. The water filter kettle and shower patents still list their Amazon and retailer references with the dates the applicants disproved. Anyone relying on the face of the patent should read the file.
What to Take From the Week
- Draw original figures with a clear line-weight hierarchy, and put any later claim boundary on a structural edge.
- For GUI cases rejected under 35 USC 171 for lack of a depicted screen, check the title and claim and cite 91 FR 12394.
- Treat an Amazon “Date First Available” or review date as a listing date. Get the ASIN history from Seller Support or the seller portal, and compare variants.
- Match inventor names, including romanization, across the priority filing and the US filing before you file.
- If an animated GUI is patented, consider a continuation on a single frame.
- When the Office offers a choice between two titles or articles, make the same choice in the title, the claim and the ADS, then check the printed patent.
- Have an inventor sign the Rule 130(a) declaration whenever one is available.
- Answer generic motivations such as “market trends” with LKQ‘s record-support requirement and the word hindsight.
- When an amendment is refused as a shift in invention, consider a design CPA before a petition.
