DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: rear movement part in claim 1; mechanism . . . to move the clamp rearward in claim 1; and articulation parts in claims 6 and 11-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma in Line 16, after the term “tooling,” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma in Line 3, after the term “diameter,” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the guide orifice” in Line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites to “at least one guide orifice” and “a given one of said at least one guide orifice.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the clamp slides along the guide orifice from a mouth of the guide orifice . . . to a rear of the hollow nose part when moving between the retracted and deployed positions” in Line 23-25. It is unclear whether the clamp slides along the guide orifice to a rear of the hollow nose regardless of whether the clamp is moving from one position to the other as claimed or whether the clamp only moves to the rear of the nose part upon movement from one to position to the other only as disclosed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the given guide orifice” in Line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites to “a given one of said at least one guide orifice.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the distal wall of the tooling” in Line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a surface” in Line 35. There is already sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation is to a different surface or the previously recited limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a part to be drilled” in Line 35. There is already sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation is to a different surface or the previously recited limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “transition from the clamp’s retracted position towards the clamp’s deployed position” in Line 37. It is unclear if the transition is towards the deployed position or to the deployed position. The next clause concerning the second section of length recites that the clamp is maintained in the deployed position. Appropriate correction required.
The term “proximal” in claim 1, Line 48, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said distal end” in Line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a cylindrical wall, configured to bear against said first guide portion and against said second guide portion.” It is unclear whether the cylindrical wall is capable of bearing against both guide portions at the same time or if it only bears against one guide portion at a time. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a wall having a conical shape, to a rear of said cylindrical wall” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear what “to a rear of said cylindrical wall” requires. Appropriate clarification required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “each pivotably articulated onto said rear movement part according to two articulation axes positioned on either side of the longitudinal axis of the clamp” in Lines 3-4 of claim 6.1 It is unclear whether the term “either” implies an option of one or the other. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “the longitudinal axis” in Line 4 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “the pivoting axes” in Line 15 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “the parts for articulation” in Line 15 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “for articulation onto the rear movement part” in Line 17 of claim 6. It is unclear what is meant by articulation “onto” the rear movement part. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “the simultaneous counter-rotational pivoting” in Line 21 of claim 6. It is unclear what constitutes counter-rotational pivoting. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 6 and 11-14 each recite “their respective housing, generating a sliding.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “respective housing” limitation. The claim previously sets forth a housing. Appropriate correction required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “counter-rotational” is well-known to refer to rotation in opposing directions. Examiner disagrees. Applicant fails to provide any support for the assertion. The adverb “counter” means in an opposite direction (e.g., counter-clockwise). See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 Claim 6 is used merely as an example for locating the language cited. Each claim recites the language.