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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, claims 1-6, 11 and 12, in the reply filed on 02/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “441” has been used to designate both a cylindrical portion (Figure 9, paragraph [0074]) and a slot (Figure 14, paragraph [0078]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 21, reference number 392B is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
In Figure 22, reference numbers 100, 101, 130, 140, 160 and 170 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 11 and 12 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, line 8, it has been held that the functional "whereby" statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish. In re Mason, 114 USPQ 127, 44 CCPA 937 (1957).
Claim 1, line 6, “the body mating face” is indianite, given it in unclear which of the two body mating faces previously recited is being referenced.
Similarly, claim 1, line 7, please clarify to which body lock “to the body lock” refers.
Further in claim 1, please clarify what the Applicant intends by “reversibly couple”. The Specification and Drawings fail to provide particulars regarding the intended meaning with regards to the claimed configuration.
Claim 3, the recitation that one or more slots are dimensioned to accept the wing lock, a spring, and a lock pin is indefinite. The drawings show the slots accepting the tabs of the wing lock, but the spring and lock pin appear to be accepted through an aperture in the lower portion of the central portion of the main body. Please clarify the configuration the Applicant deems as their invention.
Further in claim 3, lines 4-5, please clarify whether “a wing lock” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited wing lock.
Claim 5, the recitation that a tab aperture slidingly mates with the locking portion of the lock pin is indefinite. It is unclear which locking portion is being recited, given two locking portions are previously recited in preceding claim 4 with regards to the lock pin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. Aside from the recitation that an aperture slidingly mates with one of the locking portions, there are no recited connections between elements, thus resulting in an indefinite configuration and a lack of clarity regarding that which the Applicant deems as their invention.
Related to the rejection above, claim 11, line 3, please clarify whether “a spring seating portion” is related to the recited “spring”.
Further in claim 11, line 4, please clarify between which elements the two release portions are situated.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the locking tab" in line 4, and “the corresponding lock tab apertures” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a locking tab or corresponding lock tab apertures, only two or more tabs, a locking tab set and an aperture.
Further in claim 12, lines 2-3, the recitation “the locking tab set,…, slides the lock pin axially against the spring” is indefinite. It is unclear how the tab set slides the lock pin, given both are inserted into the central portion at different sides, and the tab set cannot physically slide the lock pin.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Reddick (US 2019/0237047).
In terms of claim 1, Reddick teaches a modular string instrument (see Figure 1) comprising: a main body having a head (212), a neck (210) and a central portion (214) (see Figure 2), the central portion having two body mating faces (see Figures 2 and 3) and each body mating face having one or more body locks or rails/slots (310a, 310b); and two or more wings (202), each wing having a wing mating face and one or more wing locks (602, 604) (see Figures 2 and 6), each wing mating face corresponding to a body mating face on the central portions (see Figures 1 and 2), and each wing lock corresponding to a body lock of the central portion.
As for claim 2, Reddick teaches the central portions further comprises a pickup cartridge receiving portion (see Figures 1 and 2).
Claim 1 can further be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the German publication DE 20 2013 100 273 U1 (see Figure 1), The British publication to Weatherill (GB 2555109 A) (see Figures 1 and 8), and the US patent to Stadnyk (9, 378,711) (see Figures 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are believed to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 12 are believed to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the closest prior art of record found are the Canadian publication to Shan et al. (CA 2166047 A1) and the US patent to Karg (5,918,294).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 03/04/2026