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.
Our weekly review of the 343 design patents that issued on October 20, 2026 ranked ten files. This post takes the top three and shows what was actually in the record: the examiner’s comparison pages, the drawings as filed and as issued, and the evidence that carried the day. The full list is in An Examiner Asks Amazon’s AI for the Date.
1. An examiner asks Amazon’s AI for the date, and the rejection falls
The file: Application No. 29/936,332 (lid for a bottle, D1,154,247), an Air Up divisional of a Hague application with an effective filing date of May 10, 2023.
The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over an Amazon listing for Air Up’s own bottle, and laid the comparison out on a single page of the Office action. The reference is on the left, dated “Published 12/4/2019.” The claimed lid is on the right, “Effectively Filed 5/10/2023.”
The applicant did not argue that the designs differed. It attacked the date. The listing showed no “date first available,” the reviews had no photos, and the URL had no Wayback Machine capture. The response added: “Specifically with respect to Amazon.com, ASINs are frequently recycled or repurposed.”
The examiner went back to the listing, and in the examiner’s words, “utilized Amazon’s AI LLM Rufus to pull the date first available.” Rufus reported December 18, 2024, more than a year after the effective filing date. The rejection was withdrawn, and the claim was allowed because “the contours around the neck in combination with the finger loop are not found in the prior art.”
The takeaway: When a listing is dated only by a review, say so, and point out that the ASIN may have carried a different product. At least one examiner has now looked up a listing date with Amazon’s own tools.
2. One plan view of a power tool housing survives 112 under Maatita
The file: Application No. 29/824,096 (power tool, D1,154,273), filed by Evolution Power Tools in January 2022.
The application was filed with six single-view embodiments. After a restriction, the applicant elected Group 6. The elected design is a pattern of lines on what the record identifies as a motor housing, shown in one plan view. The examiner rejected it under 35 USC 112(a) and (b): “In the absence of any additional figures showing the surfaces not disclosed by the single view provided, the disclosure remains indefinite and open to multiple interpretations.”
Counsel added no views. The response relied on In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and argued that the claim “is analogous to the shoe bottom design in Maatita. While the power tool itself is three-dimensional, the ornamental design being claimed is a surface-oriented layout of lines and boundaries.” It also added straight broken lines joining the ends of the claimed lines to mark the boundary. The examiner quoted the Maatita sentence back and, in view of the replacement drawing and remarks, withdrew the rejection and allowed the claim.
The takeaway: Maatita is not limited to flat articles. When the claimed portion of a three-dimensional product is really a surface layout, a single plan view can be enough, and arguing it avoids the new matter risk of adding views. It works when the drawing shows no depth. Examiners have distinguished Maatita where shading or contour lines suggested a three-dimensional surface, and a pattern-of-lines claim on a rear bolster went abandoned on that ground (29/704,990).
3. A restored priority date pulls a TikTok video into the grace period
The file: Application No. 29/982,329 (portable display, D1,154,619), filed January 6, 2025, more than six months after its Chinese priority application of June 12, 2024.
The examiner rejected the claim under 35 USC 103, using a 55-inch outdoor digital signage listing as the primary reference and a digital A-board as the secondary reference. The Office action set the three side by side.
The applicant’s answer was an earlier disclosure of its own: a TikTok video posted June 29, 2023 by the account of Marvel Technology, a company the inventor and applicant had authorized to post it. That video is inside the one-year grace period only because the applicant had petitioned under 37 CFR 1.55(c) at filing to restore the right of priority to June 12, 2024, and the petition was granted.
The first Rule 130(b) declaration failed. The examiner found that “access to the account which posted the TikTok video does not equate to support for the date” of the video. After final, the applicant filed a new declaration with exhibits: the TikTok printout, screenshots of account records accessible only to the account owner or its authorized representatives, Marvel Technology’s US trademark registration for the mark in the video, and a joint declaration by Marvel Technology, the applicant and the inventor confirming the authorization. The examiner found that the exhibits “have established a chain of events, showing that the disclosure of the claimed design was made by the inventor to the public by way of” Marvel Technology’s TikTok account, and withdrew the rejection.
The takeaway: A US filing made after the priority deadline is not always fatal: restoring priority can rescue the grace period. When the earlier disclosure sits on another company’s social account, prove the whole chain: who controls the account, who owns the mark, and who authorized the post.
Images are taken from the prosecution histories in ProSearch and the issued patents.
