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 285 design patents that issued on September 22, 2026 after at least one rejection. Web listings again supplied most of the prior art, and the best responses this week attacked what a listing actually proves. Reliance Worldwide showed that a Home Depot page dated by a 2012 customer review was really a reused SKU now showing a 2024 product, and the examiner disqualified it. Another applicant used its own earlier Amazon listing as a shield against two third-party foreign design registrations published in between.
The rest of the list covers an applicant that beat its own pre-grace-period Instagram post with measurements, one stray line in an Application Data Sheet that cost a utility priority chain back to 2017, a double patenting escape with no terminal disclaimer, two well-built LKQ responses, and a drawing rejection answered after final with eight rotating CAD views.
The Week in Numbers
- 285 issued prosecution histories: 214 in the 29 series, 64 in the 30 series and 7 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 23 months. The range ran from about 8 months to almost 9 years.
- How they got there: about 237 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 32 received a final rejection and about 24 a Quayle action. 31 had a separate restriction requirement. 4 drew an advisory action.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112, 194 files. 35 USC 102, 72 files. 35 USC 103, 19 files. Double patenting, 30 files, including 3 same-design rejections under 35 USC 171. Terminal disclaimers were filed in 33 files.
- Rule 130 declarations: 68 files. Rule 132 declarations: 1. Interviews: 44. Appeals: none.
- LKQ v. GM cited: 4 files, all by the applicant. One examiner cited it too, to reject an applicant’s reliance on Rosen. Examiners used the pre-LKQ “so related” language of In re Glavas in 2 files.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 5.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 285 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 reused SKU means the oldest review does not date the picture
The file: Application No. 29/927,736 (tool for conduits, D1,148,698), Reliance Worldwide, filed February 6, 2024.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by a Home Depot page for a “Sharkbite Insertion Tool,” dated February 16, 2012 by its earliest customer review. The examiner invited a Rule 130 declaration.
The move: The applicant did not invoke the grace period. It argued that the page was not prior art at all, and supported that with a Rule 132 declaration from its director of e-commerce sales. The image on the page “reflects an updated design that replaced and overlaid an earlier version of the product.” “The same SKU was utilized by Home Depot for both the prior and updated versions,” and the reviews for the old version were consolidated with those for the new one.
The result: The examiner held the reference “disqualified as prior art” because “the product image shown on the website does not correspond to the dated text review.” The examiner also found support on the same page: a 2024 company reply to a review calling the tool “our latest model.”
The takeaway: A retailer listing is a container that outlives the products in it. When the only date is a review, a business-records declaration about how the retailer handles SKUs and reviews can take the reference out entirely. Note the cost: the declaration states that the design was “updated in or around February 2024,” which puts the launch date on the record.
2. Your own disclosure shields you from third-party registrations published in between
The file: Application No. 29/997,014 (toilet seat cover, D1,148,986), filed April 3, 2025.
The problem: The examiner made three anticipation rejections: an Amazon listing posted August 16, 2024, a UK design registration published March 12, 2025, and an EU design registration published March 10, 2025. The two registrations belonged to unrelated parties.
The move: The inventor’s Rule 130 declaration showed that the Amazon seller listed the design under a sales agency agreement with the inventor, signed the same day the listing went up, and attached the seller’s business license. That took care of the Amazon listing. The applicant then used the same disclosure as a shield under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(B): the inventor-originated disclosure in August 2024 came before both foreign registrations and showed the same design.
The result: All three rejections were withdrawn. The examiner found that the inventor’s earlier disclosure “predates the publication of both foreign patent references and includes the same subject matter.”
The takeaway: When a third party’s registration lands inside your grace period, look for your own earlier disclosure of the same design. One declaration can disqualify your listing and turn it into a shield against everything published after it.
3. Measurements beat the applicant’s own Instagram post from outside the grace period
The file: Application No. 29/864,212 (firearm optic plate, D1,148,947), filed May 13, 2022.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim over two of the inventors’ own Instagram posts. A Rule 130 declaration removed the later one. The earlier post, from March 17, 2021, was more than a year before filing. An argument that it showed an experimental use, an early version changed after police feedback, did not persuade, and the rejection was made final.
The move: In a telephone interview, the examiner “wanted to see measurements and numbers.” The applicant filed a continued prosecution application with a comparison built from the CAD files of the old product and the claimed design. The top edges of the outer walls were about 44 percent lower because of new chamfers. The curved lower corners extended the walls by about a third. The upper bottom flat was shortened from 0.26 to 0.05 inches, and the raised front portion from 0.535 to 0.325 inches.
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection “in view of the applicant’s arguments identifying the differences” and allowed the claim.
The takeaway: When the applicant’s own earlier product is the art, treat it as a different design and prove the differences with numbers. The trade-off is a record of specific dimensions that a later accused product can be measured against.
4. One provisional application in the ADS breaks a utility priority chain
The file: Application No. 29/947,293 (desk, D1,148,415), Versa Products, filed June 13, 2024.
The problem: The design was filed as a continuation of a chain of utility applications reaching back to July 6, 2017. The Application Data Sheet also claimed benefit of a provisional application, which a design application cannot do. The examiner held the first claim in the chain “an invalid claim because applicant inaccurately claims benefit of a provisional application.” Without the benefit claim, the applicant’s own family utility patent, US 10,485,336, anticipated the desk.
The move: The applicant filed a corrected ADS that removed only the provisional and kept the nonprovisional chain. It then argued that the family patent “is not prior art to the claimed design.”
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection on the remarks and allowed the claim. But the fix was never perfected. The Office refused to issue a corrected filing receipt because the ADS “was not properly marked up” and did not say whether the design was a continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part of each prior application. A further ADS, filed after the issue fee was paid, “will not be entered.” No one analyzed whether the utility drawings show the claimed desk.
The takeaway: When a design claims priority through a utility family, strip any provisional from the benefit claim before filing, and when you correct an ADS, mark it up properly and state each relationship. A single defective line can turn your own patents into anticipating art, and a sloppy correction can leave the patent exposed after issue.
5. Re-drawing solid and broken lines escapes both kinds of double patenting with no terminal disclaimer
The file: Application No. 29/972,765 (analyte sensor device, D1,149,048), Abbott Diabetes Care.
The problem: This continuation, in a chain reaching a 2011 provisional, drew two rejections. One was a same-design rejection under 35 USC 171 over a family design patent, which a terminal disclaimer cannot cure. The other was obviousness-type double patenting over another family patent, D915,602, on the ground that “merely claiming the edge of the arched features” was an insignificant change in scope.
The move: The applicant replaced the figures with versions of the original drawings “revised to show certain portions in broken lines and certain other portions in solid lines.” It filed side-by-side comparisons with each family patent and argued that the claim was no longer the same design and that the obviousness-type rejection was moot. It filed no terminal disclaimer.
The result: Both rejections were withdrawn without analysis, and the claim was allowed.
The takeaway: In a large family, the same original drawings can support several distinct claims by changing which portions are claimed. Here that cleared obviousness-type double patenting without a terminal disclaimer, though a challenger may test whether the difference is enough.
6. Build the examiner’s combination, to scale, and show it does not look like the claim
The file: Application No. 29/982,607 (lighting fixture, D1,149,143), W Schonbek.
The problem: The examiner rejected a faceted crystal lighting element as obvious over an Amazon listing for a bead in view of an Amazon listing for a chandelier. The examiner reasoned that stringing a bead on a cylinder was expected, and that “the art of glass and crystal beadings is analogous art of lighting articles.”
The move: The applicant filed a long LKQ response. A scaled side-by-side showed that the claimed element is nearly cylindrical, with a slight taper, wide ends and many facets, while the bead is a sharp double cone. The applicant then built the examiner’s proposed combination to scale, threading the chandelier’s cylinders through the bead’s small bore, and showed thin rods through a bulbous bead. It argued that a secondary reference’s feature cannot be both the missing element and the reason to add it, citing post-LKQ Board decisions.
The result: The examiner allowed the claim, finding that the bead does not “give the same visual impression.” The reasons for allowance rest on the “minimal angling from the center point to the outer edges of the faceted element.”
The takeaway: Drawing the combination the examiner proposes, in proportion, is a strong way to show that it does not produce the claimed design. Expect the reasons for allowance to be narrow.
7. Needing a secondary reference proves the difference is more than proportion
The file: Application No. 29/885,011 (golf towel, D1,148,413), No Dirt Golf.
The problem: The examiner rejected a rectangular towel with a contrasting triangular corner and a handle as obvious over a square towel in view of a towel with a handle. The examiner relied on In re Lamb and observed that “squares have all of the properties of rectangles.”
The move: The applicant turned Lamb around. Lamb was a single-reference case about dimensions. “The fact that the Examiner required a secondary reference at all demonstrates” that changing the primary reference “is not merely the alteration of dimensions.” It added that even the combination did not reach the claimed proportions, that the claimed handle is attached inside the perimeter and extends outward while the reference’s handle hangs inward from the seam, and that small differences matter in a crowded field. It also converted the towel’s perimeter from broken to solid lines.
The result: The rejection was withdrawn on the arguments. The reasons for allowance rely on “the combination of the visual impression of a rectangle, the placement and direction of the handle” and the contrasting corner.
The takeaway: When an examiner calls a difference mere proportion but needs a second reference to supply it, say so. The examiner’s own rejection is the evidence.
8. Leaving out contour shading on purpose, and turning nine embodiments into one design in four poses
The file: Application No. 29/823,146 (robotic arm, D1,148,821).
The problem: After a restriction, nine embodiments remained. The examiner found that they were duplicate sets of the same robot with and without contour shading, shown in different positions, and that “There can only be one claimed design in a design application.” The examiner called the unshaded sets non-enabling and suggested keeping one shaded set.
The move: The applicant cancelled the duplicates but kept the sets without contour lines, the opposite of the examiner’s suggestion: “we want to eliminate the possibility that those contour lines could be construed as ornamental features following issuance.” It described the remaining figures as the same robot in different poses.
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection, allowed the claim, and by examiner’s amendment described the figures as one embodiment in four poses.
The takeaway: Contour shading can be read as part of the claim. If the line drawings are clear enough, leaving shading out may keep the claim broader, and alternate positions can be presented as poses rather than embodiments.
9. After final, eight rotating CAD views explain an apparent inconsistency without changing the drawings
The file: Application No. 29/936,172 (fishing rod and reel holder, D1,148,959).
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 112 because the bend of the ground rod looked like “a much more closed angle” in one perspective view and “much more open” in another, and made the rejection final.
The move: After final, the applicant argued that the difference is “a natural and expected consequence of depicting a three-dimensional object from different rotational vantage points.” It attached an exhibit of eight sequential rotational views of the CAD model, showing the bend looking acute from one angle and nearly square from another while the geometry stayed the same.
The result: The response was entered, and the examiner withdrew the rejection because “the sequence of drawing views they provided clarifies that the design is properly illustrated.” No drawing was changed after final. An earlier set of replacement drawings had not cured the problem.
The takeaway: Before redrawing to cure an inconsistency rejection, check whether the views are actually consistent. A rotation sequence from the CAD model is evidence, and it avoids the new matter risk that redrawing carries.
10. An influencer’s review video traced back to the inventor through the marketing contracts
The file: Application No. 29/942,341 (smart home gym, D1,148,922), filed May 15, 2024.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated by a September 24, 2023 YouTube review of the product by a garage-gym reviewer.
The move: The inventor’s Rule 130 declaration documented the chain from the inventor to the reviewer: the applicant’s authorization of a trading company to handle overseas marketing, that company’s influencer promotion contract with an agent, the agent’s influencer list naming the reviewer’s channel, and an email the next day from the agent’s side asking the reviewer to unlist the video until the client approved it. The applicant argued the video was “an inventor-originated disclosure.”
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection.
The takeaway: When a reviewer or influencer publishes first, the marketing paperwork is the proof that the reviewer got the design from the inventor. Keep the contracts and the influencer lists.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/950,838 (scraper spoon spatula, D1,148,461): An Amazon Seller Partner Support email showed the listing was created six months after its “Date First Available,” moving it inside the grace period. The first declaration still failed because it said “The ChefAide was invented by the inventor” instead of a first-person statement. A corrected declaration won.
- Application No. 29/941,677 (tooth-shaped bag, D1,148,343): The inventor declared that earlier dates on her Etsy listing reflected different products later replaced in the same listing, and that Etsy keeps no public record of image changes. The examiner accepted it.
- Application No. 29/981,329 (dome forming tool for embedding flat padded earring posts, D1,148,494): The inventors traced the customer review that dated their own web page to an invoice for that reviewer’s purchase, using the review platform’s back-end records.
- Application No. 29/874,851 (display screen with graphical user interface, D1,148,775): A 103 rejection rested on two Shutterstock images and a YouTube PowerPoint tutorial. Claiming more of the original drawing overcame it, after the examiner briefly treated the amendment as a shift to a different design.
- Application No. 29/856,717 (electric scooter, D1,148,898): The applicant answered a final inconsistency rejection with scaled, cropped and joined existing views showing a cutout in the neck, and cancelled the redrawn line-drawing embodiment to escape new matter.
- Application No. 30/042,222 (container, D1,148,451): Instead of removing shading the examiner objected to, the applicant added a statement that the broken-line elements within the shaded area form no part of the claim.
- Application No. 29/929,058 (clip, D1,148,366), Burberry: One Rule 130(a) declaration, signed by an in-house attorney rather than the inventor, removed a runway show held 364 days before filing, a blog article and three foreign registrations.
Enforcement Watch
- A patent that lives or dies on a utility chain. Application No. 29/947,293 (desk) is valid over the applicant’s own US 10,485,336 only if it is entitled to the 2017 utility filing date. The examiner withdrew the rejection, but the Office never accepted a properly corrected ADS, so the benefit claim may not be perfected, and no one analyzed whether the utility drawings show the claimed desk.
- Double patenting cleared without a terminal disclaimer. In Application No. 29/972,765, the only difference from family patent D915,602 is which portions are drawn in solid lines. The examiner withdrew the rejection without explanation.
- Dimensions on the record. Application No. 29/864,212 distinguished the inventors’ earlier product by specific measurements and percentages. An accused plate closer to the old product than to those numbers has a record to cite.
- Narrow reasons for allowance. Application No. 29/982,607 was allowed on “minimal angling” of the faceted element, and Application No. 29/885,011 on a rectangle, the handle’s placement and direction, and the contrasting corner. In 29/885,011, the handle and the perimeter were also converted from broken to solid lines to avoid art.
- A launch date sworn to. The Rule 132 declaration in Application No. 29/927,736 says the design was updated “in or around February 2024,” the same month the application was filed.
- Statements about how to read the drawings. In Application No. 29/823,146, the applicant said it left out contour lines so they would not be read as ornamental features, and described the figures as one robot in different poses. Both statements may matter in claim construction.
- Eight years of redrawing. Application No. 29/628,141 (portable sampling device, D1,149,093), a continuation-in-part filed in 2017, went through five continued prosecution applications and repeated new matter rejections before allowance. The drawings were redrawn several times along the way, which invites a written description challenge.
- Revived applications. Applications No. 29/870,578, No. 29/871,814, No. 29/881,306, No. 29/900,062 and No. 29/975,093 were abandoned and revived. Revival of a design application requires a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.137(d).
What to Take From the Week
- When a web reference is dated only by a review, ask whether the listing has outlived the product. A business-records declaration can show it has.
- Use your client’s own earlier disclosure as a shield under 102(b)(1)(B) against third-party disclosures that came after it.
- When your client’s own pre-grace-period product is the art, prove the differences with measurements from the CAD files.
- Never claim a provisional application in a design’s benefit chain.
- In a large family, consider re-allocating solid and broken lines before accepting a terminal disclaimer.
- Answer LKQ combinations by drawing the combination to scale, and point out when the examiner needed a second reference to supply a supposedly trivial difference.
- Decide deliberately whether contour shading belongs in the claim.
- Before redrawing to cure an inconsistency rejection, try showing that the views are consistent.
- Keep influencer and distribution contracts. They are the evidence a Rule 130 declaration needs.
