DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 7th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 lines 5-6 recite …the second jaw is attached to the housing via a rocker arm… and line 11 recites …wherein the second jaw is attached to the housing via a rocker arm…. This appears to be a duplicate limitation in claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreidler (U.S. Patent 5,855,580).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13:
Kreidler discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-7) comprising:
(claim 1) a first jaw (22, 23, and 24)
(claim 1) wherein the first jaw is attachable to a first jaw segment (see Figure 4)
(claim 2) wherein the first jaw is fixedly attached to the housing (for example see Figure 3)
(claim 1) a second jaw (51)
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is attachable to a second jaw segment (see Figure 4)
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is configured to move the second jaw segment toward the first jaw segment
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is configured to translate during a segment of travel
(claim 12) wherein each of the first and second jaws include one or more fasteners (62) arranged to attached the jaw to the respective jaw segment (for example see Figure 4)
(claim 13) wherein the one or more fasteners are removably attachable to the respective jaw
(claim 1) a housing (29)
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is movably attached to the housing
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is attached to the housing via a rocker arm (16)
(claim 1) wherein the second jaw is fixedly attached directly to the rocker arm (for example see Figure 3)
(claim 5) an actuator (41)
(claim 5) wherein the arranged to translate the second jaw
(claim 10) wherein the actuator is at least partially disposed in the housing (for example see Figure 6)
Regarding claim 14:
Kreidler discloses a device (for example see Figures 1-7) comprising:
(claim 14) a first jaw (22, 23, and 24)
(claim 14) wherein the first jaw is attachable to a first jaw segment (see Figure 4)
(claim 14) a second jaw (51)
(claim 14) wherein the second jaw is attachable to a second jaw segment (see Figure 4)
(claim 14) wherein the second jaw is capable of moving the second jaw segment toward the first jaw segment
(claim 14) a housing (29)
(claim 14) wherein the first jaw is fixedly attached to the housing (for example see Figure 3)
(claim 14) wherein the second jaw is attached to the housing via a rocker arm (16)
(claim 14) wherein the rocker arm is capable of moving relative to the housing
(claim 14) wherein the rocker arm is capable of translating the second jaw
(claim 14) wherein the rocker arm is moveably attached to the housing
(claim 14) wherein the second jaw is fixedly attached directly to the rocker arm
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are directed to the limitations added by the amendment, which are discussed in the new grounds of rejection provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference PTO-892 for cited references the examiner felt were relevant to the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights