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 431 design patents that issued on September 29, 2026 after at least one rejection. The best moves in it share a feature: the applicant cleared a piece of prior art without filing the declaration the examiner asked for. Williams-Sonoma put a statement about its own earlier web disclosure in the specification at filing. When the examiner rejected the claim anyway, it cited the MPEP and won without a Rule 130 declaration. Another applicant beat an Amazon “Date First Available” with argument alone. A third cleared its own WIPO registration by correcting inventorship.
The rest of the list covers a boundary line that cost a priority chain going back to 2011, surface ornamentation rescued by a utility application filed the same day, an appeal brief that got an examiner to give weight to a layer it had called “purely functional,” and an animated GUI won by arguing the transition rather than the frames.
The Week in Numbers
- 431 issued prosecution histories: 323 in the 29 series and 108 in the 30 series. None were 35-series Hague designations, though several were US divisionals of Hague applications. Median time from filing to issue: about 22 months. The range ran from about 7 months to 5 years.
- How they got there: 330 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 54 received a final rejection and 48 a Quayle action. 37 had a separate restriction requirement. 12 drew an advisory action.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112, 301 files. 35 USC 102, 102 files. 35 USC 103, 18 files. Double patenting, about 40 files, including 9 same-design rejections under 35 USC 171.
- Rule 130 declarations: 56 files. Rule 132 declarations: 3. Interviews: 46. Appeals: 1, which ended in allowance after the brief, with no Board decision.
- LKQ v. GM cited: 4 files, all by the applicant. No examiner cited it. Examiners used the pre-LKQ “so related” language of In re Glavas in 4 files.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 4.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 431 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. A statement in the specification does the work of a Rule 130(a) declaration
The file: Application No. 30/010,051 (chair, D1,149,406), filed June 25, 2025 by Williams-Sonoma.
The problem: The specification opened with a “Statement Regarding Prior Disclosures by the Inventor.” It identified a June 28, 2024 disclosure of the commercial product on westelm.com, explained that West Elm is a Williams-Sonoma subsidiary and that the inventors were obligated to assign, and said that disclosure and “any later disclosure” were excepted under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A). The examiner objected that “A statement of joint inventorship is not part of what should be included in a design patent application.” The examiner then rejected the claim over the West Elm page because no Rule 130 declaration was on file.
The move: The applicant filed no declaration. It quoted MPEP 717.01, III(c): “a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not required if the specification of the application under examination identifies the disclosure.” It cited MPEP 2153.01(a) as well and noted that the page itself names a Williams-Sonoma brand.
The result: After consulting the supervisor, the examiner withdrew both the objection and the rejection, calling the approach “atypical for a design application” but “not improper.” In companion Application No. 30/010,065 (chair, D1,149,420), filed the same day, a different examiner accepted the same statement as establishing the exception in the first action, while objecting to parts of its wording.
The takeaway: When you know about the client’s own disclosure at filing, put the statement in the design specification. Expect some examiners to resist, and keep the MPEP citations ready.
2. “Date First Available” dates the listing, not the pictures, and argument alone carried the point
The file: Application No. 29/943,159 (clamp, D1,150,455), filed May 20, 2024.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by an Amazon listing for a “Versa Clamp.” The only date was the listing’s “Date First Available” of November 17, 2019.
The move: The applicant filed no declaration and no amendment. It argued that the Office had not carried its initial burden of showing that the images relied on were public before the filing date. “The ‘Date First Available’ field reflects when a product listing was created on Amazon, not when any particular images or content were uploaded or made public.” The response noted that listings are routinely updated, that the record had no archived capture or upload timestamp, and that the printout itself was generated in July 2025. It added that treating the field as the publication date of the images would be improper Official Notice under MPEP 2144.03. It closed by asking the examiner, if the rejection was kept, to enter an archived capture showing the same images before the filing date.
The result: “The rejection of record under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.”
The takeaway: Before conceding an Amazon reference and reaching for a declaration, ask what evidence actually dates the images. Often the answer is none. In Application No. 30/019,548 (dispenser, D1,149,428), a Wayback capture showing a differently shaped product under the same listing did the same work in an interview.
3. When the Amazon date is outside the grace period, production records prove the pictured product did not exist yet
The files: Application No. 29/844,558 (packaging carton, D1,149,646), Mars, and Application No. 29/954,720 (cover for a light, D1,150,633), Streamlight.
The problem: Both claims were rejected over Amazon listings with “Date First Available” dates more than a year before the effective filing date: June 1, 2019 against a January 7, 2022 priority date for Mars, and February 14, 2020 against a January 14, 2022 date for Streamlight. A Rule 130 declaration could not help.
The move: Both applicants filed Rule 132 declarations built on business records. Mars previewed its evidence by screen-share in an interview. It showed that the listing was created in 2019 for an earlier carton, still visible as the last thumbnail on the page, and that the claimed carton was first produced on September 8, 2022 and first shipped on September 23, 2022. Streamlight’s president and chief executive officer laid out tooling-release approvals from March and September 2021, a four-to-eight-month tooling lead time, and dated sample-part records. From these he concluded that the covers “did not exist in 2020.”
The result: Both rejections were withdrawn. The Mars examiner found that the listing was created for “a different packaging carton” and that the “Date First Available” was not changed when the new images went up.
The takeaway: Rule 130 is not the only tool. A Rule 132 declaration from the people who made the product can defeat an impossible date.
4. Buy the Amazon art, then make the examiner name a primary reference
The file: Application No. 29/952,666 (wall protector, D1,149,645), MacNeil IP.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by an Amazon gel bumper and as obvious over a two-reference combination. Two more 103 rejections each rested on a single Amazon listing, relying on In re Stevens and King Ventilating for the view that changes in proportion are not patentable.
The move: Counsel bought each product by its ASIN, photographed and cross-sectioned it, and filed the results in a Rule 132 declaration. Two of the bumpers were so small that, the declaration said, an ordinary observer would need a magnifying glass to see their features. The remarks then applied LKQ: a primary reference must be identified, the examiner had not named one, and there was no record-supported reason to modify it. The single-reference rejections supplied no secondary reference at all. And “‘Proportion’ is not a special kind of difference which may be automatically excluded.”
The result: The examiner found the arguments persuasive on 102 and 103 and allowed the claim. The applicant filed a terminal disclaimer to resolve a double patenting rejection.
The takeaway: This is a reusable LKQ response, and physical samples turn a thumbnail into evidence. Note one tension, though. The double patenting rejection rested on the view that the copending designs differed only in proportion, and the applicant disclaimed rather than argued it.
5. A boundary line costs a priority chain back to 2011, and deleting it buys the chain back
The file: Application No. 29/923,814 (saw blade, D1,149,573), Milwaukee Electric Tool.
The problem: This design claims a portion of a saw blade through a chain of continuations reaching a utility application filed April 22, 2011. The drawings added a boundary line across the blade. The examiner held that the line, “effectively creating a new design carved from the continuous surface shown in the parent applications,” had no support in the parents. The examiner denied domestic priority and then rejected the claim as anticipated by the family’s own US Patent No. 8,776,659.
The move: The applicant did not argue. “By way of this Amendment, the drawing is amended to remove the boundary line.”
The result: Priority was restored, the family patent fell away as art, and the claim was allowed. A Rule 312 amendment after allowance updated the priority paragraph.
The takeaway: When a continuation claims part of a parent’s design, check every line against the parent drawings. A single added boundary line can turn your own family into anticipating art. Sometimes the safer portion claim has no boundary line at all.
6. Surface ornamentation with no article, rescued by a utility application filed the same day
The file: Application No. 29/893,245 (orthopaedic surgical instrument with surface ornamentation, D1,150,437), DePuy Ireland.
The problem: The drawings showed surface ornamentation without the article. The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 171, citing In re Schnell: “A disembodied design or mere picture (2D) or sculpture (3D) is not the subject of” a design patent. The examiner invited a Rule 132 declaration on ornamentality.
The move: In a video interview, the examiner and counsel discussed three options: add a tray in broken lines supported by the specification, rely on the copending utility application, or draw a simplified broken-line tray. The applicant added a sterilization tray in broken lines. It found support in two places: the original preamble, which described the design as “for an orthopaedic surgical instrument, such as a sterilization tray,” and a benefit claim, added during prosecution, to utility Application No. 18/202,518, filed May 26, 2023, the same day as the design.
The result: The 171 rejection was withdrawn. The examiner found that the continuation claim to the utility application met 35 USC 120 and that the amendments were “supported by the original disclosure.”
The takeaway: A design filed with a utility application on the same day has a ready source of support for showing the article later. Name the article in the design specification as well.
7. An appeal brief gets an examiner to give weight to a layer it had called “purely functional”
The file: Application No. 29/882,370 (incision dressing, D1,150,483), DeRoyal.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim over a design patent for an adhesive patch “as evidenced by” a utility patent for a transdermal dosimeter. The examiner used the utility patent to say the claimed bottom layer was “purely functional, not created for the purpose of ornamenting, and therefore hold no patentable weight.” The dosimeter counted as analogous because it is applied to skin. The applicant’s issued registrations in Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the EU and the UK were dismissed as “not a valid argument.”
The move: After a final rejection and an advisory action, the applicant appealed. The brief argued that the examiner had ignored the bottom and side views. It made the overall-impression point in plain words: the claimed design “looks more like a hat whereas the design of D480,811 looks like a fried egg.”
The result: The examiner reopened and allowed the claim, finding the brief’s arguments about “the appearance of the bottom and side views, as well as the additional bottom layer” persuasive.
The takeaway: When a utility patent is used to strip weight from a visible feature, the examiner is making a functionality finding without the analysis that requires. A focused brief, built on the views the examiner skipped, can end the case before the Board ever sees it.
8. Going to the supervisor finds transparency in the original drawings
The file: Application No. 29/936,744 (flexible storage bag with linear openings, D1,149,708).
The problem: The drawings showed ball-shaped contents in broken lines inside the bag, and the examiner could not tell whether the bag was transparent. The applicant added oblique shade lines to show transparency. The examiner made a final rejection for new matter and held to that position in an interview.
The move: Counsel contacted the supervisory examiner. Together they went through the original drawings looking for features that could be seen only through a transparent bag. They found three: the rear slits visible through the front panel, the bottom seal seam visible through the side walls, and the gusset lines visible through the bottom seal. The supervisor also suggested curving the oblique lines where they pass over the round contents and deleting “(such as food items)” from the broken line statement.
The result: The interview summary records that “applicant does have antecedent basis support for adding the oblique shade lines.” The new matter rejection was withdrawn and the claim allowed with the transparency lines.
The takeaway: A material property added after filing can be supported by what the original views show through the material. When the examiner will not move, the supervisor may.
9. Correcting inventorship clears the applicant’s own WIPO registration with no declaration
The file: Application No. 29/973,775 (electric wheelchair, D1,149,803), Shanghai Bangbang Robotics, a US divisional of a Hague application.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by the applicant’s own international design registration, published October 7, 2022, less than a year before the effective filing date of August 11, 2023. The registration named designers who were not named inventors in the US application. The drawings also used red coloring, standard in Hague practice, to mark unclaimed areas. The examiner held that coloring is “unacceptable” for that purpose in a US designated application.
The move: The applicant corrected inventorship so that every designer named on the registration was also a named inventor in the US application. It then invoked 35 USC 102(b)(1) without a Rule 130 declaration. It converted the red areas to light gray “ghosting.”
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection, noting that the applicant had “corrected their inventorship to disqualify prior art.”
The takeaway: When your own foreign registration is cited, compare its designers with your inventors first. Fixing inventorship may make the exception apparent on the record. Applications No. 29/973,803 (comb, D1,149,386) and No. 29/986,556 (drying rack, D1,150,771) also added an omitted inventor, in the same response as a Rule 130 declaration.
10. In an animated GUI, argue what changes between the frames
The file: Application No. 29/873,550 (portion of display panel or screen with animated graphical user interface, D1,150,136), Sony Group.
The problem: The examiner finally rejected the animated GUI as obvious over two design patents and a Graphic Design Stack Exchange web page titled “How to Cross Wires in Illustrator.”
The move: After the final rejection, counsel held a telephone interview with the examiner and the supervisor and then filed remarks only. They argued four distinctions about the transition, not the static images. None of the references goes from zero straight lines to two. The “straight line” in the primary reference’s final frame is already in the frame before it, so nothing transitions. That line sits below the circle’s center rather than moving through it. And no reference shows two parallel lines passing through the centers of the circles in the previous image. The Office’s misreading of the primary reference, counsel added, showed it was “simply trying to fit” the reference to the claim.
The result: After consulting the supervisor, the examiner withdrew the rejection, quoting two of the applicant’s transition arguments and “the transitional nature of the claim from figure 1 to figure 2.” No drawing amendment was needed.
The takeaway: For a transitional or animated GUI, the claim is the sequence. A reference that shows similar frames but not the same change from one frame to the next is a weak basis for a 103 rejection.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/912,892 (chair, D1,149,416): The applicant argued that schematic utility drawings show only a “design concept” under In re Harvey and cannot serve as a primary reference. The examiner disagreed, holding that utility drawings are read “with next to no reliance on the specification.” The claim issued only after more structure was put in solid lines.
- Applications No. 29/893,905 and No. 29/893,910 (contact sensors, D1,149,744 and D1,149,745): The EU filings named no common inventor, so priority was denied and the applicant’s own EU registrations became the art. The applicant filed an updated EUIPO register and a Rule 130(a) declaration together. The examiner relied on the declaration and called the priority arguments moot.
- Application No. 29/989,350 (server bezel, D1,150,050): An appendix of shaded views filed with the application supported added shading and a new FIG. 9 after the final rejection.
- Application No. 30/012,707 (monitor, D1,150,063): The applicant cured a same-design 171 rejection by narrowing the sibling application to the flat version of the monitor, which that application’s priority documents supported.
- Application No. 29/972,812 (bus interior, D1,149,868): Yellow fill, not broken lines, was accepted as the disclaimer device in color drawings. Several vehicle-interior files used the same convention this week.
- Application No. 29/984,053 (page turner with charging case set, D1,150,028): The applicant’s own earlier listing on 1688.com, tied to the inventor through a Chinese business registry, disqualified a third party’s later Amazon listing. The examiner treated the declaration as Rule 130(b) despite its 130(a) label.
- Application No. 29/982,368 (crutch tip, D1,149,339): The cited Amazon listing had been set up for a different crutch tip. The seller later swapped in the claimed design without changing the date. This application was also revived after abandonment.
Enforcement Watch
- A declaration that offers a filing date, not a disclosure. In Application No. 29/989,503 (driving recorder, D1,150,195), the only Rule 130 evidence against a July 30, 2024 Amazon listing was the inventor’s statement that the listing appeared after he applied for Chinese design patent CN308863014, which he said is identical. The patent claims no foreign priority. A foreign filing date is neither a public disclosure under 102(b)(1)(B) nor proof that the seller got the design from the inventor. The examiner accepted it. A challenger may not.
- Double patenting left open. Applications No. 29/828,623 and No. 29/828,624 (test strip reference boards, D1,150,433 and D1,150,434) each received a final provisional double patenting rejection over two copending applications. The examiner reasoned that differences in indicia were de minimis. In No. 29/828,624, the applicant replied only that “the cited application has been amended.” The allowances do not discuss the rejection, and no terminal disclaimer appears in either file. Both patents issued the same day.
- Arguments that define the claim. In Application No. 30/039,014 (cube, D1,150,274), the applicant won a 103 rejection by calling the design “smooth, monolithic,” with through-openings that “are not surface indicia.” In Application No. 29/952,666, the applicant described the wall protector as opaque, with a front face that is “forwardly convex.” Accused products without those features have a record to point to.
- Admissions made while asking for the grace period. At least eight Amazon responses this week began by agreeing that “the Examiner’s findings are correct” and that the listing “is the same as claimed.” One example is Application No. 30/032,816 (laser engraving machine). The admission was not needed for the exception and now sits in the file.
- A self-described revision with no terminal disclaimer. Application No. 30/005,610 (fishing jig, D1,150,343) told the examiner that the claim “is a revised design version” of the inventor’s D1,072,153. The terminal disclaimer it filed was disapproved as illegible, and no double patenting rejection was made.
- A drafting slip in a cancellation. Application No. 29/944,972 (surgical garment, D1,149,270) states that figures were cancelled “with admission, waiver, prejudice, or disclaimer.” The word was almost certainly meant to be “without.”
- Revived applications. Applications No. 29/810,235, No. 29/896,333, No. 29/932,069 and No. 29/982,368 were abandoned and revived. Revival of a design application requires a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.137(d). In No. 29/896,333, the revival petition was dismissed twice over defects in the terminal disclaimer, including missing form language and a signature by someone not of record, before revival was granted.
What to Take From the Week
- If you know about the client’s own disclosure at filing, identify it in the design specification. MPEP 717.01, III(c) says no declaration is then required.
- Before filing a Rule 130 declaration against an Amazon listing, ask what dates the images. “Date First Available” dates the listing.
- When the date is outside the grace period, use Rule 132 and the client’s production, tooling and shipping records.
- Answer obviousness rejections with the LKQ structure: name the primary reference, demand a record-supported reason to modify it, and test any single-reference rejection that has no secondary reference.
- In continuations and divisionals, compare every line, especially boundary lines, against the parent drawings before filing.
- File design and utility applications together when you can, and name the article in the design specification.
- When a cited foreign registration is your client’s own, check inventorship before you draft a declaration.
- For animated GUIs, argue the transition.
- When an examiner will not move on new matter, ask the supervisor to look at the original drawings with you.
