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 278 design patents that issued on November 3, 2026 after at least one rejection. Most followed the familiar path from a drawing rejection to replacement sheets to allowance. Nine files are worth keeping.
The one to read first is a Fisher & Paykel connector that was withdrawn from issue after the issue fee was paid. A sibling patent in the same family had issued with the wrong embodiment’s drawings, which produced a same-design double patenting rejection, and small drawing refinements cost the priority chain, which turned the family’s own 2016 patent into anticipating art. Also this week: a LKQ response built on four post-LKQ PTAB decisions, two applicants who beat Amazon dates (one with a Rule 132 declaration, one by arguing that Amazon recycles product numbers), a design continuation of a utility family that kept its 2020 date without the parent’s logo sticker, and a Hague design for a window that changes from clear to opaque, whose explanation of that change was struck from the printed patent.
The Week in Numbers
- 278 prosecution histories: 196 in the 29 series, 69 in the 30 series and 13 Hague designations in the 35 series. Median time from filing to issue: about 25 months. The range ran from about 9 months to nearly 6 years.
- How they got there: 216 were allowed without a final rejection or an Ex parte Quayle action. 39 received a final rejection and 28 a Quayle action. About 49 had a restriction requirement. 5 drew an advisory action. 2 were withdrawn from issue after the issue fee was paid.
- Rejections by ground: 35 USC 112 in about 186 files. 102 in about 45. 103 in about 19. Obviousness-type double patenting in about 28, and one same-design rejection under 35 USC 171.
- Rule 130 declarations in about 26 files, most answering the applicant’s own listing, video or post. One declaration labeled Rule 130(b) was treated as a Rule 130(a) declaration. One Rule 132 declaration. Interviews in about 42. No notices of appeal.
- LKQ v. GM cited in 5 files: three times in applicant arguments, once by an examiner, and once in an interview, where counsel asked whether a long list of cited art signaled an obviousness rejection.
- Applications abandoned and later revived: 3. All three printed patents carry a terminal disclaimer notice.
Method note: these are file-level counts across the 278 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 Nine
1. Withdrawn from issue: a sibling patent issued with the wrong drawings, and the family’s 2016 original became the prior art
The file: Application No. 29/788,065 (connector for a breathing circuit, D1,156,610), filed March 3, 2021 by Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.
The problem: After the issue fee was paid, the Office withdrew the application from issue. The examiner then found that the prongs, notches and walls differed slightly from an earlier application in the chain, denied benefit (“When a design is changed, the result is a new and different design”) and rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over D809,656, which issued from the family’s own 2016 application. The examiner also made a same-design rejection under 35 USC 171 over the applicant’s own D1,027,165, which a terminal disclaimer cannot cure.
The move: Counsel explained that in the sibling application, “the drawings were inadvertently replaced with drawings that correspond to the elected Embodiment 1” of this one, so the sibling had issued on the wrong embodiment. The response amended this case to a different embodiment, despite the original election, and redrew the details to match the 2016 ancestor.
The result: The benefit objection, the 171 rejection and the 102 rejection were all withdrawn. Allowed.
The takeaway: Check every family member’s issued drawings against the elected embodiment. Small refinements in a continuation can cost the priority chain and turn your own earlier patent into anticipating art.
2. Four post-LKQ PTAB decisions and an unaddressed difference end an Amazon-on-Amazon obviousness rejection
The file: Application No. 29/982,605 (lighting fixture trim, D1,156,709), filed January 7, 2025 by W Schonbek LLC.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 103 over a crystal chandelier pendant sold on Amazon in view of the faceting on Swarovski crystal prisms, also sold on Amazon. The list of shared features in the rejection even referred to a different product by name.
The move: The response walked through the LKQ framework and four PTAB decisions applying it: Next Step Group v. Deckers (IPR2024-00525), A&A Global Imports v. Lerman Container (IPR2024-01138), Arashi Vision v. GoPro (IPR2024-01434) and an ex parte appeal decided August 12, 2025 (Appeal 2024-002635). It argued the rejection lacked a record-supported reason to combine and ignored real differences. In the same response, counsel converted two disclaimed octagonal beads to solid lines.
The result: The examiner withdrew the 103 rejection, finding persuasive that differences “such as the differing links, were not addressed by the examiner.” But the solid-line beads drew a final new matter rejection, because the original drawings did not show their faceted surfaces. Counsel restored the as-filed figures with the beads disclaimed, and the case was allowed.
The takeaway: A rejection that skips a visible difference is vulnerable under LKQ, and this response is a ready-made digest of PTAB authority. Do not combine a winning argument with a drawing change you do not need.
3. A “Date First Available” from another model falls to a Rule 132 declaration
The file: Application No. 29/943,264 (debris blower housing, D1,156,746), filed May 21, 2024 by The Toro Company.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over Toro’s own blower, as shown on an Amazon UK page that listed a “Date First Available” of May 11, 2021. That date was three years before filing, well outside the grace period, so a Rule 130 declaration could not help.
The move: Counsel filed a Rule 132 declaration from the product marketing manager for the product. He stated that no product embodying the design was public before the filing date. He also noted that the URL printed at the bottom of the examiner’s own copy named a different model number, and suggested the listing may have been associated with that other model. By the time of the response, the availability date no longer appeared on the live page.
The result: The examiner found the reference “has an unreliable prior art date” and withdrew the rejection. Allowed.
The takeaway: When the date itself is wrong, the tool is a Rule 132 declaration on the facts, not a Rule 130 attribution declaration. Read the fine print on the examiner’s printout: here the URL contradicted the product name.
4. A recycled Amazon product number defeats a 2019 review date, and the examiner checks it with Amazon’s AI assistant
The file: Application No. 29/936,328 (bottle, D1,156,128), an Air Up divisional of a Hague application with an effective filing date of May 10, 2023.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over an Amazon listing and dated it December 4, 2019, the date of the earliest customer review on the page.
The move: Counsel attacked the date, not the design. The response pointed out that “ASINs are frequently recycled or repurposed,” so old reviews on a listing do not show that the product now pictured was sold when they were written. None of the early reviews included a photo. The Wayback Machine had no capture of the page, which counsel noted gave no independent support for the date. As a fallback, counsel argued the listing lacked enough views to anticipate.
The result: The examiner agreed that without a photo, “the examiner concedes that the date of the prior art reference is unreliable.” The examiner then used Amazon’s AI shopping assistant, Rufus, to pull the listing’s date first available, December 18, 2024, which postdated the effective filing date, attached that result to the record, and withdrew the rejection.
The takeaway: A review date is evidence that someone reviewed something, not that this product existed. When an Amazon date is the only date, look for photo-less reviews, ASIN reuse and a missing Wayback capture. This is the second examiner in three weeks to ask Rufus for a date (see the October 20 review), so expect it to become routine.
5. A design continuation of a utility family keeps its 2020 date without the parent’s logo sticker
The file: Application No. 29/956,019 (pad envelope, D1,156,512), filed August 5, 2024 by Aunt Flow Corp. as a continuation of a chain of utility applications reaching back to August 8, 2020 (now US 11,532,197).
The problem: The examiner objected to the benefit claim because the 2020 utility figure showed a sticker with two concentric circles on the envelope, and the design claim did not. Without the 2020 date, the applicant’s own 2022 YouTube video and a 2023 product review became 102(a)(1) art.
The move: Counsel argued the sticker was decoration with a company logo: it had no reference number and no description, and a different, functional sticker appeared in another figure. Omitting incidental decoration did not change the disclosed design.
The result: The examiner accepted the benefit claim, reasoning that “it is understood that stickers need an unadorned, flat surface to adhere to,” and withdrew both 102 rejections.
The takeaway: Utility figures can support a later design claim. Unlabeled branding in a parent figure is a weaker obstacle than a change to the shape. Compare last week’s bird feeder, where deleting surface ornament cost the parent’s date.
6. A window that changes from clear to opaque, with its explanation struck from the patent
The file: Application No. 35/522,638 (automobile, D1,156,270), a Toppan Holdings Hague designation with an international filing date of October 11, 2023.
The problem: The design is a car window with a light control sheet. Three top views show it at different tones, and the description stated that “the essential feature of the present design is the changing state of transmittance of the window.” The examiner rejected the claim under 112 because shading extended past the claim boundary, and because the changing state was a concept that is “not a tangible article of manufacture.”
The move: Counsel removed the stray shading and submitted a description explaining the dot-dash boundary, the oblique shading for transparency and the changing tones across the three views.
The result: The 112 rejection was withdrawn. But by examiner’s amendment, the examiner, who had already rejected the “essential feature” statement, found the description “wordy and not necessary” and replaced everything after the figure list with two sentences about broken lines. The printed patent claims an automobile and says nothing about the changing state.
The takeaway: Static figures of a changing physical article are being allowed, but a description of the change may not survive. Review every examiner’s amendment before paying the issue fee, and object under Rule 312 if a statement that defines the claim is cut.
7. A yoga mat is not a rug: SurgiSil and Curver answer an anticipation rejection
The file: Application No. 29/934,210 (simulated grass yoga mat, D1,156,075), filed March 25, 2024 by two individual applicants.
The problem: The examiner rejected the claim under 102(a)(1) over an artificial grass runner rug sold on Home Depot’s website, finding both showed an elongated rectangle with a dense pile of green blades.
The move: Counsel did not argue appearance. The response relied on the title as part of the claim, citing Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions, and on In re SurgiSil, which held that a design claim is limited to the article named. It reasoned from the old rule that “That which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier”: a rug would not infringe a claim to a yoga mat, so the rug could not anticipate it.
The result: The examiner withdrew the rejection without comment, “In view of the amendments and remarks.” After an examiner-initiated interview cancelled one figure, the case was allowed.
The takeaway: SurgiSil remains a clean answer to art from a different article. The price is scope: the applicant has told the Office that the claim does not reach rugs.
8. Five images, 21 embodiments: claiming every order of an animation in one application
The file: Application No. 29/959,230 (display panel or screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface, D1,156,419), filed August 23, 2024 by Sony Group Corporation.
The problem: The applicant wanted protection for several sequences built from the same five screen images, without spelling out every combination. The examiner rejected the claim under 112 repeatedly, including a final rejection, because the transitional description did not identify which sequences were claimed.
The move: Counsel held interviews with the examiner and with the supervisory examiner. The supervisor suggested restoring a deleted transitional paragraph, simplifying the figure descriptions and describing each sequence as a separate embodiment, and indicated that the sequences would not be restricted.
The result: The patent issued with 21 embodiments, ranging from the full five-image sequence to two-image pairs in different orders. The examiner kept them together: “The changes in the exact sequence of frames/figures is not seen as creating multiple patentably distinct designs.”
The takeaway: One application can carry many orderings of the same frames, but each sequence must be named as an embodiment. That determination also means that art against any one embodiment can be applied against the group.
9. A revival petition is dismissed because design revivals require a terminal disclaimer
The file: Application No. 29/878,085 (round square top food container, D1,156,133), filed June 15, 2023 by Cambro Manufacturing.
The problem: The application went abandoned on December 9, 2025 after no reply to a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers. The petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(a) included the reply, fee and statement of unintentional delay. “The petition is DISMISSED.”
The move: The Office of Petitions explained the missing item: under 37 CFR 1.137(d), a design application must include a terminal disclaimer dedicating to the public a part of the term equal to the period of abandonment. Counsel filed the disclaimer and fee.
The result: The application was revived and issued. The patent carries a terminal disclaimer notice, and so do the two other revived patents this week.
The takeaway: For designs, revival is not free: every day abandoned comes off the 15-year term, and the disclaimer reaches continuing applications too. A missed formalities notice can cost months of enforceable term.
Honorable Mentions
- Application No. 29/996,636 (smart wallet): Wayback Machine captures showed that a 2023 review on the seller’s site described an earlier, different version of the wallet, and the 102 rejection was withdrawn.
- Application No. 29/971,692 (trash can): the applicant labeled its declaration Rule 130(b), but the examiner treated it as a Rule 130(a) declaration because the seller obtained the design from the inventor, and withdrew the rejection anyway.
- Application No. 29/803,590 (tamper-indicating box): withdrawn from issue after the issue fee for a 112 rejection and an obviousness-type double patenting rejection resting on “established design choice” reasoning; the applicant disclaimed the internal elements and filed a terminal disclaimer.
- Application No. 29/974,168 (glove): a first Rule 130(a) declaration failed because it did not connect the Amazon store to the applicant; the examiner added that under LKQ a secondary reference need not look like the claimed design. A second declaration succeeded.
- Application No. 35/517,067 (optical sensor): in an interview, counsel asked whether the number of references on the PTO-892 meant an obviousness rejection was coming under LKQ; the examiner said no rejection was implied by the citations.
- Application No. 29/868,533 (display screen with graphical user interface): before the March 2026 guidance, the applicant cured a 35 USC 171 rejection by adding a broken-line screen perimeter, following the examiner’s recommendation. Compare last week’s Abbott icon, which issued with no screen at all.
Enforcement Watch
- Term lost to revival. D1,156,133, D1,156,708 and D1,156,373 were all revived and all carry terminal disclaimers. Anyone valuing these patents should calculate the shortened term from the file.
- Article-limited scope by argument. In D1,156,075, the applicant argued that a rug would not infringe a claim to a yoga mat. Expect that statement to be quoted back against any assertion against floor coverings.
- Sworn date statements. D1,156,746 rests on a sworn statement that no product embodying the design was public before May 21, 2024. An accused infringer with earlier evidence will focus on that statement, while the patentee now has a sworn answer to the Amazon date.
- A description removed by the Office. D1,156,270 shows changing tones in three views with no description of the change. The scope of that claim, and whether it covers a window in one state only, is an open question.
- A claimed embodiment changed after withdrawal from issue. D1,156,610 claims a different embodiment than the one originally elected, to avoid same-design double patenting with D1,027,165. The record explains why, which helps the patentee.
- Disclaimed beads. D1,156,709 disclaims the two octagonal beads at the bottom of the trim after an attempt to claim them failed. The claim does not reach that part of the fixture.
- Entity status. In application 29/945,267 (speaker horn), a renewed fee deficiency submission under 37 CFR 1.28(c) was accepted and small entity status removed before issue, which removes a common basis for a later challenge.
What to Take From the Week
- Treat every Amazon date as a claim, not a fact. Check reviews for photos, check for ASIN reuse, look for a Wayback capture and read the URL on the examiner’s printout.
- Match the declaration to the problem: Rule 130 when the disclosure came from the inventor, Rule 132 when the date is wrong.
- Under LKQ, list every difference the examiner did not address. The PTAB decisions cited in the lighting trim file are a good starting point.
- Keep drawing changes out of responses that win on argument. A new matter final is an avoidable cost.
- Audit issued drawings across a family. A mix-up in one patent can surface years later as a withdrawal from issue in another.
- Read examiner’s amendments line by line before paying the issue fee, especially when they rewrite the description.
- Calendar formalities notices like office actions. For designs, revival costs term.
