Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MYK]

Have to reply to an OA in which the examiner has issued a 112 based on not having drawings showing the mechanical-invention-item placed within the prior-art-device in which the mechanical-invention-item functionally replaces the prior-art-device's prior-art-item.

The drawings do show the mechanical-invention-item.

Is this rejection proper?

Does anyone have an example of an OA response in which new drawings were added in order to overcome such a rejection?

Thanks.

[khazzah]

Have to reply to an OA in which the examiner has issued a 112 based on not having drawings showing the mechanical-invention-item placed within the prior-art-device in which the mechanical-invention-item functionally replaces the prior-art-device's prior-art-item.

The drawings do show the mechanical-invention-item.

Is this rejection proper?

I don't recall ever seeing a 112 1st rejection based on the lack of a feature in a drawing. Nor can I think of any rule or case that says your claim is not enabled/fails written description if your claimed feature is not in a drawing.

So my gut reaction is No, the rejection isn't proper.

The more common Examiner response in this scenario is a drawing objection.

Does anyone have an example of an OA response in which new drawings were added in order to overcome such a rejection?

I've never seen drawings amended to overcome such a rejection. In fact, I rarely see the spec amended to overcome a 112 First. The typical response is instead to point to existing stuff in the spec/drawings to show enablement or possession.

In fact, I'd go farther to say that amending the drawings or spec is way more likely to trigger a 112 First than to cure this.

[klaviernista]

Like Karen, I think the 112 rejection is probably improper in your case.  I say "probably" because without having your application before me it is impossible to provide a definitive answer. 

That said, I do think your application/drawings could have been properly objected to by the Examiner under 1.83. See below.

37 CFR 1.83 Content of drawing.

(a) **>The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.<

(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.

(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).

[klaviernista]

Just to cover the bases:  Is your application a design application?