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 we look again at the other side of the ledger: design applications abandoned between October 12 and October 18, 2026 whose files are open to the public and that drew at least one rejection. There were 51 of them. Fifty are Hague designations. The other is a domestic application in a family that includes an issued utility patent.
The headline is how few of them were ever answered. Only 5 of the 51 applicants filed a reply to any Office action, and every one of those replies was signed by a USPTO-registered practitioner. Several of the others were lost on rejections that a terminal disclaimer or a one-page Rule 130 declaration would very likely have cured.
1. The Week in Numbers
- 51 abandoned histories reviewed: 50 Hague designations and 1 domestic application. Every one had at least one rejection, which is how the batch is collected.
- How they ended: all 51 for failure to reply, 48 to a non-final action and 3 after a final rejection. One had been allowed, with the issue fee paid, before the Office withdrew it from issue.
- Rejections under 35 USC 112: 30, most of them about the drawings. Section 171 (no article of manufacture): 7. Restriction requirements: 2.
- 102 rejections: 7. 103 rejections: 12. Double patenting: 13 files, 3 of them same-design (statutory) rejections that a terminal disclaimer cannot cure.
- Replies filed: 5. Interviews: 1. Rule 130 or Rule 132 declarations: none. Appeals: none.
- LKQ v. GM cited by an examiner or an applicant: none.
- Files with a US correspondence address: about 10.
Method note: these are application-level counts across the 51 file histories. One file may carry several grounds, so the categories overlap. The batch is one week long and dominated by Hague designations, so treat the numbers as a snapshot, not as rates.
2. Siblings Rejected Over Siblings
The largest group this week is families of near-identical designs filed as separate international registrations, each designating the US. US examiners treated them as one design or as obvious variants of one another.
Six cardboard boxes, thirty rejections. Application Nos. 35/524,456, 35/524,461, 35/524,463, 35/524,492, 35/524,517 and 35/524,520 covered packaging boxes that differed in interior wall features, a tab or plain front edge, and wall height. Each drew five provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections, one against each sibling, plus a 103 rejection. The examiner reasoned that “varying the heights of the interior wall features would have been well within the level of ordinary skill,” and added that “color is not a patentable distinction in design patents.” One of the five rejections in 35/524,517 is against 35/524,517 itself. Nobody replied.
Three toothpaste cartons, same-design double patenting. Application Nos. 35/524,813, 35/524,830 and 35/524,852 each carried the same five color variants of a carton with a striped cap. The examiner kept the colors together in each file, finding “they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application,” and then rejected each file under 35 USC 171 as claiming the same design as a co-pending sibling (35/524,813 and 35/524,830 against each other, 35/524,852 against 35/524,868): “The design and scope of the instant application and that of co-pending Application No. 35/524,830 are identical.” The action warned that “the filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 171.” Only one of the identical registrations could ever have issued.
Rejections that were really allowances. In three files double patenting was the only real obstacle. In Application No. 35/525,074 (heat pump water heater) it was the sole ground: the two designs “both depict the same water heater but one having the front extruded panel extend to the very top and bottom of the tank.” In Application Nos. 35/524,489 (armchair) and 35/524,567 (chair seat) each was rejected only over the other, because a “slight difference in height of the base does not make a patentable distinction,” and the art the examiner found was “cited as the most pertinent art found and are not applied.” A terminal disclaimer would very likely have put each of them in line for allowance. None was filed.
The lesson for anyone managing a Hague portfolio: decide before filing which variants the US will see as one design. Identical designs filed as separate registrations cannot all issue here. Close variants can, but only with terminal disclaimers and common ownership, and someone has to file the disclaimer.
3. The Grace Period Nobody Invoked
Seven files had a 102 rejection. Four relied on references dated within a year of filing, and in each the examiner pointed to the cure.
In Application No. 35/524,444 (acupressure ball) the reference was a ShaktiMat-branded Amazon listing, and the correspondence address is a Shakti company, which suggests the product was the applicant’s own, although the file does not say so. The examiner dated the listing from Amazon’s “Date first available” (“the published date of the SHAKTIMAT reference is December 6, 2024”), about five weeks before the January 2025 filing, and wrote: “To overcome this rejection, the applicant may submit an appropriate affidavit, declaration of attribution, or declaration of prior public disclosure, to disqualify the disclosure as prior art (37 CFR 1.130).” No reply was filed. Application Nos. 35/524,943 (massage apparatus) and 35/525,047 (bath tub) were also rejected over web references dated within a year of filing, and also went unanswered.
Two other 102 files show the limits of that cure. In Application No. 35/525,248 (handbag) the reference was the brand’s own 2022 YouTube introduction of the bag, three years before the Hague filing. At an interview the examiner explained that “since the prior art reference applied under 35 USC 102 has a disclosure date more than one year before the effective filing date of this application, an affidavit or declaration of attribution would not invoke an exception.” The applicant let it go. In Application No. 35/525,083 (bag) the reference was the applicant’s own British priority application, because no certified copy had been filed: “the claim for foreign priority has not been perfected and Applicant has not been granted the benefit of GB6401176. Therefore, the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are applied.”
4. Allowed, Paid and Pulled Back
Application No. 35/517,875 (energy storage power supply unit) is the cautionary tale of the week. After a three-way restriction, the applicant elected one embodiment and filed replacement sheets that dropped the non-elected views. The examiner accepted them, the case was allowed in 2024, and the issue fee was paid through the International Bureau. In February 2026 the Technology Center Director withdrew it: “The above-identified application is being withdrawn from issue after payment of the issue fee due to unpatentability of the claim.” The new action found that “The replacement reproductions, upon which the above rejection is based, appear to have been stretched relative to the original views,” and that “there is no support in the original disclosure for the change in the scale and proportions apparent in the amended reproductions.” No reply was filed. The same pattern, an allowance pulled back after the issue fee, also appeared in four of the design patents that issued on October 20.
The one domestic file, Application No. 29/879,694 (tactical belt), shows the after-final trap. The first reply to a drawing rejection added new views, which drew a final rejection for new matter: “The addition of figure 9 is supported by the parent application, 18/354,125; however, the remainder of the belt shown in the other figures is not present in the parent application.” Two after-final replies followed. The second converted the whole buckle to broken lines, and the examiner refused entry because “This change in scope would necessitate further search and consideration to determine whether the claimed design is obvious in view of the prior art.” No continuing application appears in the file.
5. Hague Filers and the US Rules
Graphic symbols with no article. Seven files claimed bare graphics: six “comic figure” symbols from one filer, Application Nos. 35/524,600, 35/524,603, 35/524,610, 35/524,652 and 35/524,667 in one art unit and 35/524,662 in another, and an individual’s two-dimensional graphic design, 35/525,311. All were refused under 35 USC 171 for want of an article of manufacture; five of the actions put it flatly: “graphic symbols are not articles of manufacture.” Examiners differed on whether amendment was worth trying. One wrote that the “Applicant may attempt to amend to overcome the above rejection, however, any new matter will be required to be canceled.” Another warned that “any attempt to amend the drawings to include an article of manufacture would introduce new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121,” and suggested copyright or trademark instead. Either way, a graphic filed without a screen or an article cannot be rescued in the US.
Drawings fixed by removing, not adding. Most of the 112 rejections were ordinary: views that disagree, features visible only in one view, blurred lines. The examiners’ advice was consistent. In Application No. 35/524,977 (sweeper charging base): “to enter such information now, by way of cross-section or perspective views, would almost certainly constitute new matter. The areas which are not fully disclosed should be removed from the claim.” In Application No. 35/524,553 (tent): “Broken lines may be used to show visible environmental structure, but may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque materials.”
Language written for other offices. Hague “reference views” have no special meaning in US practice; one examiner wrote that “the reference view will be treated as another view of the design” (Application No. 35/525,570). EU-style statements that the characteristic features “lie in the shape” and that no protection is claimed for coloring drew objections throughout the cardboard box family.
A refusal that came late. The action in Application No. 35/524,251 (car air freshener) carries the notice that “This communication was unintentionally not communicated to the International Bureau within the applicable time period under Rule 18(1)(b).” No one replied, so whether a late refusal stands was never tested.
6. Enforcement Watch
None of these files is tied to an issued US design patent, but several put findings on the record that will matter if a related design issues.
Sibling findings. The examiner found the six cardboard boxes obvious variants of one another, the armchair and chair seat not patentably distinct, and the water heater not distinct from Application No. 35/525,051. Similar findings were made against Application Nos. 35/524,868 (toothpaste carton) and 35/526,465 (air conditioner). If any of those siblings issues, a competitor can cite these findings on how narrowly the Office read the differences.
A parent’s drawings found inconsistent. The tactical belt file is a child of utility application 18/354,125. The examiner’s findings that the buckle views disagree and that most of the later figures were “not present in the parent application” will follow any continuing design filing that relies on those figures.
Prior art now of record. The 2022 YouTube video in the handbag file and the Amazon listing in the acupressure ball file are now art of record against any related US filing on the same products.
7. What to Take From the Week
- Before designating the US on a family of Hague registrations, decide which variants are the same design. Identical designs cannot all issue, and close variants need terminal disclaimers.
- Read every double patenting refusal for what is left. When it is the only ground, the reply is a terminal disclaimer.
- If the reference is the client’s own listing or video inside the grace period, file the Rule 130 declaration. The examiner usually says so.
- Perfect foreign priority before the first action. An unperfected priority claim can turn the applicant’s own priority filing into prior art.
- Overlay replacement sheets on the original reproductions before filing them. Stretched drawings can undo an allowance after the issue fee is paid.
- Make scope-changing broken-line amendments before final, or file a continuing application.
- File graphics on a screen or an article from the start. A bare graphic cannot be fixed in the US.
- For a foreign applicant, line up US counsel early. This week, every reply on file was signed by a USPTO-registered practitioner.
