DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on March 6, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended; claims 15 and 16 are new.
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 103 rejections, but various 112 matters continue to obtain. The examiner notes that the withdrawn claims are not appropriate for rejoinder, being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to for its dependency upon a canceled claim, claim 8. The examiner will provisionally interpret claim 14 as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate a seventh paragraph which reads, in part: “…a positioning surface configured to position the engagement surface of the projection.” The examiner does not find this diction apt, as the verb “position…the projection” implies that the projection is being physically moved, i.e., “positioned.” However, it is the carrier which moves in various directions given its engagement with the stationary projection, and the diction of the claim ought to reflect this procedure. Further, the final phrase of the paragraph reads: “a positioning surface configured to position the engagement surface…after engaging with the engagement rotation surface.” This syntax implies that the positioning surface has previously engaged the engagement rotation surface, but these two surfaces represent distinct sites of the same notched portion and cannot contact each other. Correction is required. The examiner suggests the diction of “fit to” in view of paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification, i.e., …a positioning surface configured to fit to the engagement surface of the projection after the engagement rotation surface has engaged with the engagement surface of the projection. To expedite prosecution, the examiner will provisionally assess the contested limitation under the presumption that the suggested changes have already been implemented.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. This claim recites first and second correction mechanisms, whereby the former is defined as the notched portion of claim 1. However, claim 1 established the notched portion as a sub-component of the “first engagement portion.” The distinction between the “first correction mechanism” and the “first engagement portion,” then, is unclear because the claim set defines both by reference to the very same feature. Further, the second correction mechanism is defined as a “separate notched portion,” but is this second notched portion also part of the first engagement portion? And, if so, what is the distinction between the first engagement portion and the second correction mechanism? Correction and clarification is required. The examiner suggests removing the concept of first and second correction mechanisms entirely and simply stating that: (1) the notched portion also regulates the carrier’s clockwise rotation, and (2) there exists a second notched portion that engages with a second projection to regulate the carrier’s counterclockwise rotation. To advance prosecution, the examiner will provisionally assess claim 2 under the presumption that the suggested changes have already been implemented.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights