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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 8 July 2026, the Amendment filed 15 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending, of which claims 5 and 8-12 were previously with withdrawn from consideration but are rejoined herein (see the Rejoinder section below). Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18 August 2025, except for any objection(s) to the drawings repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Rejoinder
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement between Inventions I-III , as set forth in the Office action mailed on 6 June 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of linking claim 1. The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement between Inventions I-III as set forth in the Office action mailed on 6 June 2025 is withdrawn. Claims 5 and 8-12, directed to Inventions II and II, respectively, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Note that the requirement with respect to Inventions IV and V was previously withdrawn in the Non-Final Office action mailed 18 August 2025. In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed 4 December 2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because Fig. 1 as amended introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Fig. 1 is amended to illustrate a spring-loaded ball “142” and a lock “143”, and each and every feature of the spring-loaded ball “142” and the lock “143” now illustrated in Fig. 1 was not described in the present application as originally filed. For example, the lock “143” being positioned at a side of the spring-loaded ball “142” was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. As another example, the spring-loaded ball “142” having a square configuration was not illustrated in the present application as originally filed. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. The examiner provides suggestions for overcoming this rejection in the following paragraph.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 18 requires, “ a resiliently mounted element latchable into the depressions in a spring-biased manner is provided as the counter-detent geometry”. Claim 19 requires, “wherein the resiliently mounted element is a spring loaded ball”. Fig. 1 as amended does not illustrate that element “142” is a ball, since element “142” is indicated with a square shape. Moreover, element “142” is not illustrated in Fig. 1 as being able to latch into depressions in a spring-biased manner. As such, the block added to Fig. 1 to indicate a “spring-loaded ball” is insufficient to illustrate the features of claims 18 and 19. The spring-loaded ball must be shown as performing all functionality required by the claims, and the block added to Fig. 1 is not illustrated as being capable of the recited functionality. Claim 20 requires a lock that is “movable alternately between a state allowing movement of a resiliently mounted element and a state blocking movement of the resiliently mounted element”. No “lock” as described in claim 20 is illustrated in the present drawings. While the Applicant has added a block indicated by “143” to Fig. 1, this block is not illustrated as being movable in the manner required of the lock in claim 20. Therefore, the above quoted features of claims 18-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. To overcome this objection, the examiner suggests amending claims 18-20 by removing features not illustrated in the drawings as originally filed from claims 18-20. For example, the examiner suggests amending claim 18 to read, “The angle stop of claim 1, wherein one of the first body and the second body has a circular arc-shaped detent surface with at least one detent geometry, wherein depressions are provided on the circular arc-shaped detent surface as the detent geometry.” The examiner suggests amending claim 19 to remove the final clause staring with “wherein...” following the plus or minus 60 degrees language. The examiner suggests amending claim 20 to recite, “The angle stop of claim 18, wherein the circular arc-shaped detent surface with the depressions is provided on the second body, and wherein the circular arc-shaped detent surface is oriented perpendicularly to the rotation plane of the first body and of the second body.” The examiner agrees that the features are illustrated in the drawings, and amending claims 18-20 in the above manner would avoid reciting features not illustrated in the drawings.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 at line 2 recites, “the longitudinal extension direction”. This recitation should read – the first longitudinal extension direction – in view of claim 1 introducing more than one longitudinal extension direction.
Claim 8 at lines 2-3 should be amended as follows: – which extend in [[a]] the first transverse extension direction of the first workpiece contact surface or in parallel with [[a]] the first transverse extension direction of the first workpiece contact surface – to conform to the language of claim 1.
Claim 10 at line 2 recites, “is releasable fixable”. This recitation should read – is releasably fixable – to correct a grammatical error.
Claim 10 at line 2 recites, “at least one contact pin”. This recitation should read – at least one of the at least two contact pins – because the contact pins are previously introduced, and thus should be referred to with consistent language as used in claim 10 at lines 1-2.
Claim 12 at line 3 recites, “the longitudinal extension”. This recitation should read – the substantially cylindrical longitudinal extension – in view of claim 1 already introducing other longitudinal extension directions (thus avoiding confusion regarding which ‘longitudinal extension’ is referred to).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a quick connection system” as recited in claim 1 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “fixing said work component to be fixed to the work component contact surface”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “quick connection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system – i.e., the system is for ‘quick connection’);
“an angle fixing device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “angle fixing” and “designed to fix the first body and the second body with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “angle fixing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device); and
“a quick connection system” as recited in claim 22 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “fixing said work component to be fixed to the work component contact surface”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “quick connection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system – i.e., the system is for ‘quick connection’); and
“an angle fixing device” as recited in claim 22 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “angle fixing” and “designed to fix the first body and the second body with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “angle fixing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/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 5 at the final line recites, “at least one of the workpiece contact surfaces”. Claim 5 depends from claim 1, which introduces, “a first workpiece contact surface” (see claim 1 at line 2). Claim 4, which is not in the chain of dependency of claim 5, introduces “a second workpiece contact surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the workpiece contact surfaces” in claim 5, rendering the claim indefinite. Does claim 5 intend to depend from claim 4, such that there is an antecedent basis for first and second workpiece contact surfaces? Does claim 5 intend to refer only to the first workpiece contact surface? Does claim 5 intend to introduce a new workpiece contact surface, in addition to the first workpiece contact surface? The examiner suggests changing the dependency of claim 5 from depending from claim 1 to depending from claim 4, such that there is an antecedent basis for more than one contact surface.
Claim 12 at lines 3-5 recites, “in particular a circular intrinsic curve having a diameter of 20 mm, wherein the at least one contact pin in particular is produced from a polymer”. This recitation is indefinite due to twice reciting “in particular”, rendering it unclear whether the above quoted feature is required or is merely exemplary. Exemplary features should be disclosed in the specification, not recited in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Since it is unclear whether the curve must have a diameter of 20 mm and whether the pin must be produced from a polymer, or whether these features are merely options, claim 12 is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 13-22 are allowed. Claims 8-11 would be allowable upon being amended to overcome the objections set forth above. Claims 5 and 12 would 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 requires, “wherein the first body includes a guide rail having a stabilising body arranged in a displaceable manner in the guide rail, wherein the stabilising body is configured to engage a corresponding recess in the work component, wherein the stabilising body is displaceable along the guide rail in dependence upon an angle-defined orientation of the first body and the second body with respect to each other.”
Claim 21 requires, “wherein the first body includes a guide rail having a stabilising body arranged in a displaceable manner in the guide rail, the method further comprising: engaging the stabilising body with a corresponding recess in the work component; and displacing the stabilising body along the guide rail in dependence upon an angle-defined orientation of the first body and the second body with respect to each other.”
Claim 22 recites, “wherein the first body includes a guide rail having a stabilising body arranged in a displaceable manner in the guide rail, wherein the stabilising body is configured to engage a corresponding recess in the work component, wherein the stabilising body is displaceable along the guide rail in dependence upon an angle-defined orientation of the first body and the second body with respect to each other.”
No known reference teaches or suggests any of the above quoted features, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claims 1, 21, and 22, respectively. US Pub. No. 2021/0299905 A1 to Wollenburg teaches that the second body 14 includes two bodies 40 and 42 for engaging the work component, and Wollenburg does not disclose the above quoted features of claims 1, 21, and 22, which require the guide rail having the displaceable stabilising body to be included with the first body.
US Design Pat. No. D1,076,647 S to Wen does disclose a guide rail having a stabilising body arranged in a displaceable manner in the guide rail (see the annotated Fig. below). However, even if Wollenburg were modified in view of Wen to allow for adjustment of a work component engaging body, the modification of Wollenburg would include making body 42 of Wollenburg displaceable toward and/or away from the body 40 of Wollenburg in order to accommodate different work components. Even this modification does not read on claim 1, 21, or 22 because each of these claims requires that the first body includes the guide rail and the displaceable stabilising body, but Wollenburg if modified in view of Wen would disclose the second body including the guide rail and the displaceable stabilising body. There is no motivation to provide the first body 12 of Wollenburg with a guide rail having a displaceable stabilising body because a displaceable stabilising body on the first body 12 of Wollenburg is not positioned to engage the work component and because Wollenburg already includes two work component engaging bodies 40 and 42 on the second body. As such, claims 1, 21, and 22 distinguish over the best known art.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive. First regarding the objections to the drawings related to claim 1 reciting, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body”, claim 21 reciting, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in a rotation plane of the first body and the second body”, and claim 22 reciting, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body”, the examiner has withdrawn these objections to the drawings based on a different interpretation of claims 1, 21, and 22 than previously relied upon. The examiner interprets these recitations as being satisfied if the work component contact surface extends in a same direction as the rotation plane, even if the work component contact surface is not located within the rotation plane. In view of the present drawings illustrating the work component contact surface “210” extending in the y-direction, the examiner considers the above quoted claimed feature as being illustrated. Note, however, that the Applicant takes a narrower interpretation of each of these limitations. The Applicant at page 18 of the Remarks dated 4 December 2025 and at pages 16-18 of the Remarks of 15 June 2026 considers each of the above limitations as requiring that the work component contact surface actually lines in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body.
Next, regarding objections to the drawings related to a failure to illustrate the features of claims 18-20, the Applicant asserts, “Applicant respectfully submits that the spring-loaded ball 142 and the slide lock 143 would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” This argument is not persuasive. The issue is whether the drawings illustrated all claimed features as required by 37 CFR 1.83. The Applicant argues against a different standard where the drawings do not need to illustrate every claimed feature, so long as one of ordinary skill in the art could arguably understand some structure for performing recited functions. It remains the case that there is no illustration of a resiliently mounted element latchable into depressions in a spring-based manner as required by claim 18, no illustration of a spring-loaded ball as required by claim 19, and no illustrating of a lock having the features required by claim 20. 37 CFR 1.83 requires that all claimed features be illustrated, and this requirement is not met. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. However, the examiner provides suggestions in the Drawing Objections section above for resolving this issue. In particular, the examiner suggests removing features from claims 18-20 that are not illustrated in the drawings. Claims 18-20, depending from claim 1, would regardless be allowable.
Regarding the drawings as amended 4 December 2025, the Applicant argues that the specification provides support for the newly added features. This argument is not persuasive. For example, there is no disclose of the lock ‘143’ being positioned at a side of the spring-loaded ball ‘142’, even though Fig. 1 as amended illustrates this arrangement. Since each and every feature of the ball ‘142’ and lock ‘143’ added to Fig. 1 was not described in the present application as originally filed, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Still, the examiner provides suggestions herein for resolving the drawing objections so that this application can proceed to allowance.
Regarding the recitation of “angle fixing device” as recited in claims 1 and 22 being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant asserts that an “angle fixing device” is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. This argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above, the recitation satisfies the three prong test for interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in MPEP 2181. Second, the Federal Circuit has held that generic terms including “device” typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment. See Welker Brewing Company v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, the Applicant has provided no evidence that “angle fixing device” connotes sufficiently definite structure, and instead relies solely on argumentation to support this assertion. Indeed, the corresponding structure for the angle fixing device of the present application is a clamping screw. A clamping screw is a sufficiently definite name for structure. If the Applicant would like to avoid 112(f) interpretation, the Applicant is free to recite language such as a clamping screw that is directed to a particular structure. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and recitation of “angle fixing device” remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The same analysis is likewise applicable to Applicant’s argument that ‘quick connection system’ should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), such that Applicant’s argument that ‘quick connection system’ should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) is likewise not persuasive. The examiner invites Applicant to provide evidence, not merely attorney argumentation, that either of “angle fixing device” and “quick connection system” is a name of a known class of structures.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 21, and 22 have overcome the rejections of these claims as being anticipated by Wollenburg for the reasons explained in the Allowable Subject Matter section above. As a result, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 21, and 22 are not moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights