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 444 design patents that issued on September 8, 2026, read through their prosecution histories. The most useful file shows how to answer an obviousness rejection built on a stock sentence: that the references “are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.” The applicant listed the differences the action had never addressed, and backed that with a 2025 Board decision holding that the “so related” sentence is not a record-supported reason under LKQ. The examiner withdrew the rejection on the differences. Examiners used that sentence in at least seven files this week.
The rest of the list covers an Amazon date beaten with the brand’s own archived website, web art that showed only one side of the article, a design that claimed the benefit of a utility application filed earlier the same day, an EU registration answered with an EUIPO invalidity decision instead of a declaration, a title narrowed after final to shrink the field of analogous art, appendix figures that supported a continuation and a late drawing change, sibling applications that escaped a same-design rejection without a terminal disclaimer, a continuation whose unclaimed broken lines nearly cost its date, and Board decisions that answered a depth rejection on small features without redrawing them.
The Week in Numbers
- 444 issued prosecution histories: 375 in the 29 series, 48 in the 30 series and 21 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 25 months. The range ran from about 5 months to nearly 6 years.
- How they got there: about 330 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. About 74 received a final rejection and about 49 a Quayle action. About 70 had a restriction requirement. 11 drew an advisory action.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112, about 310 files. 35 USC 102, 65 files. 35 USC 103, 33 files. Double patenting, about 55 files, including 10 same-design rejections under 35 USC 171.
- Rule 130 declarations: about 40 files. Rule 132 declarations: about 3 files. Interview summaries: about 75 files. Appeals: one notice of appeal, followed by a continued prosecution application. No briefs.
- LKQ v. GM cited: 12 files, 10 by the applicant and 2 by the examiner. Examiners used the pre-LKQ “so related” language of In re Glavas in at least 7 files.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 5.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 444 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. List the differences the examiner skipped, with Ex parte Chen behind them
The file: Application No. 29/993,416 (stool, D1,146,384).
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as obvious over the “Moon” stool in view of a “Bias Base” pedestal base, both from websites. The action relied on “simple substitution” and the “so related” sentence, and dismissed the remaining differences as “minute details.”
The move: The response had two parts. First, under the second Graham factor, it listed differences the action never addressed, including open space between the tops of the legs where Moon has an angled blocking support, and a footrest bar that is “short and wide” where Bias Base’s bars are “tall and narrow.” Second, it collected four post-LKQ PTAB decisions, ending with Ex parte Chen, Appeal 2024-002635 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2025), which reversed a rejection resting on “so related” because it “does not appear to provide a sufficient record supported reason under LKQ.”
The result: The examiner found the differences argument persuasive and withdrew the rejection, crediting “the relative position of the legs and seat in combination of the wide and short rectangular shaped footrest bar.” A nearly identical response beat a “simple substitution” rejection in Application No. 29/994,648 (seat, D1,146,380). In Application No. 29/955,323 (endcap for a chamber, D1,147,268), an LKQ record-supported-reason argument against “so related,” made with the differences after final, got the claim allowed without an appeal.
The takeaway: Lead with the differences the examiner skipped, since that is what carried this file. Then cite Chen as Board authority that “so related” is not a reason to combine.
2. The brand’s archived website beats Amazon’s “Date First Available”
The file: Application No. 30/006,401 (food package with surface indicia, D1,146,644), a continuation claiming an October 11, 2022 date.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as obvious with an Amazon listing for Annie’s Shells & Real Aged Cheddar as the primary reference, dated by the listing’s “Date First Available” of March 7, 2017.
The move: The Amazon URL had no Wayback Machine captures, so counsel went to archived copies of the brand’s own website, annies.com, over a ten-year period and attached the screenshots in date order. They showed that the box graphics changed from time to time and that the packaging in the cited listing first appeared between August 15 and September 1, 2024. Counsel noted having seen “several instances” of Amazon dates that “cannot be true for the exact packaging shown in the product listing.”
The result: The examiner was “unable to directly link the Annie’s reference to the assigned year described as ‘first available'” and found that the Amazon date “appears to be associated with an earlier design.” The rejection was withdrawn. The sibling application, No. 30/006,409 (D1,146,645), was resolved the same way.
The takeaway: A “Date First Available” dates the listing, not the images on it today. When the listing itself was never archived, the brand’s own archived pages can date the artwork.
3. Web art that shows one side of the article does not anticipate
The file: Application No. 29/960,439 (connector, D1,146,821) and Application No. 29/960,447 (hood for connector, D1,146,822), Japan Aviation Electronics.
The problem: The examiner rejected both claims as anticipated by a “JAE DZ17 SERIES” page on jae.com dated December 5, 2023.
The move: The applicant filed no declaration and made no amendment. It argued that the reference “is a single perspective view depicting only the rear side, the left side, and the top side of the article,” while the claim shows the front, right and bottom as well, so a finding of anticipation “necessarily relies on conjecture regarding the appearance of portions not disclosed.”
The result: “Applicants’ arguments have been found persuasive,” and both rejections were withdrawn. The same argument worked in Application No. 29/899,260 (pill holder, D1,146,300) against an Amazon listing: “Because the Amazon webpage does not show the rear views at all, the Examiner cannot establish that these rear view features are anticipated.” The examiner agreed and added that the rear structures “are not found to be obvious.”
The takeaway: Anticipation needs the whole claimed appearance. Before conceding a web reference, check which views it actually shows, and compare the claim’s other views feature by feature.
4. A design claims the benefit of a utility application filed the same day
The file: Application No. 29/951,854 (insole, D1,146,279).
The problem: The design was filed as a continuation of utility application 18/770,076, and both were filed on July 11, 2024. The examiner held: “Since the applications have the same filing date, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper,” and required the claim to be deleted.
The move: The applicant cited Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., 826 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which held, for a continuation filed on the day its parent issued, that section 120 “does not say that the unit of time is a day.” Extending that reasoning to two filings on the same day, it filed annotated electronic payment receipts for both applications, showing that the utility parent had been pending for “an hour and twenty-five minute” when the design was filed.
The result: The examiner found the “arguments related to the claim to priority as a continuation are persuasive” and withdrew the requirement.
The takeaway: Co-pendency is not measured in whole days. When a design and a utility application go in together, file the parent first and keep the receipts.
5. An EUIPO invalidity decision in place of a Rule 130(b) declaration
The file: Application No. 30/008,395 (suction cup, D1,146,580), filed June 16, 2025 with no priority claim.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by EU registered design 015100853-0001, published April 30, 2025.
The move: The applicant filed no declaration. It argued that the EU design was “disqualified” because a third party had copied the inventor’s Chinese design, CN 309244382 S, published April 18, 2025, and registered it “in bad faith.” It attached the EUIPO Invalidity Division decision of February 4, 2026 declaring the EU design invalid, and explained that it filed directly in the United States because “the priority period of CN 309244382 S had expired.”
The result: The examiner found the response “persuasive to overcome the 102(a)(1) rejection,” and the claim was allowed.
The takeaway: Invalidation abroad does not unpublish a reference. The statutory answers are the exceptions in 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A), for a disclosure derived from the inventor, and 102(b)(1)(B), for one that follows the inventor’s own publication, normally shown with a Rule 130(a) or 130(b) declaration. The argument worked here, but make the showing expressly so the record does not rest on argument alone.
6. A narrower title shrinks the field of analogous art, after final
The file: Application No. 29/962,339 (window for an electronic device, D1,146,906), Intel.
The problem: Filed as “Electronic Device,” the claim was finally rejected as obvious over a notebook with a second display above the keyboard (D969,798) in view of an e-book reader (D626,124). The examiner wrote that “relevant art may be applied in a rejection under § 102 or 103 from any item fitting that broad description,” and that whether the borrowed features were “panels, windows, displays, clasps, or cameras is irrelevant.”
The move: After final, the applicant retitled the design “A Transparent Window on an Electronic Device” and argued that the trapezoidal window “is transparent, providing visibility into the interior of the computer. It is not a display.” The examiner then removed “transparent” from the title by examiner’s amendment as a word picture, leaving “Window for an Electronic Device.”
The result: The rejection “has been overcome by the applicant’s amendment,” and the claim was allowed. In Application No. 29/935,124 (medical injection pen, D1,147,331), a change from “Medical Pen” to “Medical Injection Pen” overcame anticipation by a marker, but the examiner wrote that the new title “narrows the scope of what is being claimed to being a specific slot element for just autoinjectors in the medical field.”
The takeaway: A broad title invites broad art. Narrowing the article can defeat a secondary reference even after final, but the examiner’s reading of the new title goes into the record.
7. Appendix figures support a continuation and a late drawing change
The file: Application No. 30/042,369 (biological sample diagnostics device, D1,147,431) and Application No. 29/980,683 (light, D1,147,502).
The problem: In the first file, a continuation claimed a design supported by appendix figures filed with the parent. In the second, replacement drawings deleted horizontal broken lines on the candle supports, and the examiner made a final new matter rejection.
The move: In the continuation, the examiner accepted that “Basis for a continuation under 35 USC § 120 is supported by Figs. P through V in the appendix (present on the filing date) of the parent application.” In the light, the applicant pointed to the CAD appendix filed with the application, which the examiner had asked it to cancel, and argued: “While the Appendix drawings do not form part of the claim, they can support amendments to the drawings and would support the removal of the dashed lines.”
The result: The continuation was allowed after a terminal disclaimer over the parent’s patent. In the light, the examiner withdrew the rejection after final: “While the removal of broken lines would ordinarily constitute new matter, the original appendix drawings do indeed show the candle sticks without these lines.”
The takeaway: An appendix filed on day one is part of the original disclosure even after it is cancelled. File one with alternate views and CAD renderings, and keep it out of the claim language.
8. Two sibling applications escape a same-design rejection without a terminal disclaimer
The file: Application No. 29/995,573 (connector, D1,146,825) and Application No. 29/995,571 (connector, D1,146,824).
The problem: Each application was provisionally rejected under 35 USC 171 as claiming the same design as the other. The examiner reminded the applicant that “a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a ‘same invention’ type double patenting rejection.”
The move: In the ‘573 application, the applicant converted originally disclosed broken lines to solid lines to claim the bottom connecting portion, citing In re Owens for the point that the original disclosure supports the change. In the ‘571 application it filed argument only: “No amendment is presented herein.”
The result: The examiner found that the amendment to claim “the bottom connecting portion of the article is patentably distinct from the co-pending application.” The rejection in the ‘571 application was withdrawn “In view of the amendments to the co-pending application.” Both were allowed, with no terminal disclaimer.
The takeaway: One sibling can take the narrowing while the other keeps its full scope, and the two patents stay independently enforceable.
9. Unclaimed broken lines in a continuation put the priority date at risk
The file: Application No. 29/999,657 (hair brush, D1,146,356), a continuation of 29/998,523.
The problem: A preliminary amendment added a broken boundary line and changed other broken lines. The examiner held: “Any matter that has been added and not supported by the original drawings is considered new matter. However, since the new matter does not affect the claimed design (i.e. broken lines), it is objected to under 35 U.S. C. 132.” The examiner required redesignation as a continuation-in-part, warned that without the parent’s date an “Instagram-BounceCurl” post of July 28, 2023 “qualifies as prior art,” and rejected the claim on it.
The move: The applicant argued that broken lines cannot affect priority but, “without acquiescing,” removed the objected-to lines and argued that the post was the inventor’s and not before the effective filing date.
The result: The status objection was withdrawn, and “as the status objection has been overcome,” so was the anticipation rejection. In Application No. 29/949,577 (grab bar, D1,146,564), the applicant took the other road and redesignated a continuation as a CIP, which it said “allows for the introduction of new matter.”
The takeaway: In a continuation, even unclaimed lines must track the parent. Before accepting CIP status, check what intervening art the lost date lets in, including the client’s own posts.
10. Board decisions answer a depth rejection on small features without redrawing them
The file: Application No. 29/985,387 (electronic device, D1,146,905), Apple.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) because the form and depth of the small circles inside the larger recesses of a lattice could not be determined.
The move: The applicant asserted that “any depth of the small circular elements is irrelevant and not necessary to understand the claim scope.” It cited Ex parte Scott, Appeal No. 2017-002509, and two Board decisions applying In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Appeal Nos. 2017-003214 and 2018-001087. Its replacement drawings added shade lines to the larger recesses and fixed inconsistencies, but left the small circles as drawn.
The result: The examiner found the arguments “(citing Scott and Maatita) are persuasive that the elements shown are represented well enough to demonstrate the appearance of the device.” In Application No. 29/965,623 (urine diversion device, D1,147,334), a Maatita argument with no drawing change cleared a channel depth rejection: “the depth of the channel is clear due to the contour line at the bottom of the channel.”
The takeaway: Not every depth rejection needs broken lines. The test is reasonable certainty to an ordinary observer, and Board decisions applying Maatita give the examiner something to cite.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/961,806 (group of graphical user interfaces for a display screen, D1,146,980): For the second week running, the March 2026 guidance got a GUI allowed with no screen drawn: “The absence of an overt showing of such a display screen is no longer considered defective under 35 U.S.C. § 171.”
- Application No. 29/778,252 (display screen with graphical user interface, D1,146,948), Apple: An LKQ analogous-art argument knocked out an academic paper, “Circle Packing for Origami Design is Hard,” as a reference against a GUI.
- Application No. 29/909,952 (display screen with graphical user interface, D1,146,958): The examiner relied on In re Zahn to crop the references down to the features matching the claimed portion. LKQ “as a whole” arguments failed. Claiming a circle in every frame of the sequence worked.
- Application No. 29/981,156 (watch, D1,146,663): A design filed in color photographs could not be converted to line drawings, because “the removal of color would be considered new matter.”
- Application No. 29/946,720 (pair of jars with blackout sleeves, D1,146,696): A matched, identical pair beat a “duplication of parts” rejection, and the examiner agreed that a line converted to broken can later be returned to solid “since the full claim line was in the originally filed drawings.”
- Application No. 29/877,870 (shoe pendant, D1,146,296): The applicant elected “with the understanding that the Examiner and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are bound to the finding of non-obviousness between Group I and Group II.”
- Application No. 29/990,376 (magnetic teapot, D1,146,462): The application was withdrawn from issue after the issue fee was paid, because a rim shown in the assembled views was missing from the exploded view.
- Application No. 35/521,841 (lamp, D1,147,505): A terminal disclaimer filed with a partial solid-line conversion of the support arm was treated as “preemptive.” The partial conversion drew a same-design refusal and a new matter rejection, and claiming the entire support arm resolved both.
Enforcement Watch
- An earlier disclosure left unexplained. In Applications No. 29/960,439 and No. 29/960,447, the cited page is on the website of the assignee’s own JAE brand and predates the filing date. The rejections were overcome on the partial-view argument, and no declaration explains the disclosure.
- A foreign registration still on the record. In Application No. 30/008,395, the EU registration published before the US filing date. The allowance rests on the EUIPO decision and argument, with no Rule 130(b) declaration.
- Sworn product and date statements. Rule 130 declarations this week tie patents to named products and dates, including the Nike Vomero Plus first-look post of March 27, 2025 in Application No. 30/000,096 (shoe, D1,146,265) and the Home Depot HDX shelves, dated by an October 25, 2024 customer review, in Application No. 29/974,915 (shelf assembly, D1,146,440).
- A conflicting sworn record. In Application No. 29/939,912 (cat scratcher, D1,147,604), the remarks said the cited listing was published after the filing date and “under the inventor’s authorization,” while the inventors’ declaration says another company made the disclosure without authorization.
- Admissions about priority. In Application No. 29/944,552 (condiment tongs, D1,146,520), the applicant stated that “the head portion of the tongs, is not entitled to the earlier filing date of the parent case.” In Application No. 29/949,577, CIP status likely limits the claim to its own filing date.
- Scope pinned by reasons for allowance. In Application No. 29/988,050 (gas cylinder, D1,147,247), the examiner credited a single feature: “The notch on the neck of the cylinder now converted from broken to solid line adds a feature considered unique to this gas cylinder design.” In Application No. 29/935,124, the examiner read the title as limiting the claim to autoinjectors.
- Revived applications. Applications No. 29/870,519, No. 29/870,520, No. 29/905,161, No. 29/959,777 and No. 35/522,295 were abandoned and revived, each with the terminal disclaimer a design revival requires. In No. 35/522,295, the first petition was filed on a form stating that no terminal disclaimer was required, and it was dismissed.
- A stray declaration. The file of Application No. 29/990,376 contains a Rule 130 declaration form that names a different product, a gaming headset stand.
What to Take From the Week
- When an action says the references are “so related,” list every difference the examiner did not address, and cite Ex parte Chen.
- Test an Amazon “Date First Available” against the brand’s archived website, not just the listing.
- Before conceding a web reference, check which sides of the article it actually shows.
- File a utility parent before its design continuation on the same day, and keep the receipts.
- Answer a copied foreign registration with a Rule 130 declaration under the 35 USC 102(b)(1) exceptions, not just an invalidity decision.
- Use the title deliberately: it sets the field of analogous art and the scope the examiner will record.
- File an appendix of alternate views and CAD images with every application.
- For same-design conflicts between siblings, narrow one and keep the other broad.
- In continuations, make every line, claimed or not, match the parent.
- Answer depth rejections with Maatita before reaching for broken lines.
