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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 6, and 8-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/22/2025 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further review, claims 1-3, 6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as described in this Office Action.
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, 8-16, and 18-20 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 lines 10-11 require the male elements to fit “at least partly inside one of either said first through opening or said second through opening of one of said adjacent female elements.” However, the male elements are only shown to fit through the first through opening, not the second through opening.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said adjacent female elements" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said male elements" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes the part was introduced as “a plurality of hollow male elements” and should be referred to with consistency throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "mutual sliding" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 19 recites “two abutment elements configured to fit sliding to size.” It is unclear what this is meant to claim. Further, this line requires the male element to fit in said second through opening which is not shown.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said abutment elements" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Limitation was introduced as “two abutment elements.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said toothed elements" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Limitation was introduced as “at least two toothed elements.”
Claim 1 line 25 recites “said toothed elements are approached to each other.” This is indefinite. Examiner suggests amending to state “said at least two toothed elements are moved toward each other”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal walls" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 29 requires the at least two toothed elements abut against the internal walls of said hollow body by “clamping there”. This is unclear as clamping requires two objects pressed together. It is unclear whether or not the toothed elements are actually clamped to the internal walls of the hollow body.
Claim 1 line 34 recites two opposite abutment surfaces “obtained internally”. This is unclear how they are obtained. Examiner suggests amending “obtained” to be “located” or “positioned”.
Claim 1 lines 40-41 require “an axis of rotation.” However, the movement of the toothed elements is not a rotation and is more akin to bending or flexing. Examiner suggests removing limitations regarding the rotation of the toothed elements and instead describing the movement as bending, flexing, or elastically moving the toothed elements parallel to a plane of one of said two abutment elements.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of insertion S" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the latter" throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests replacing each instance of “the latter” with the specific limitation being referred to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said opposite abutment surfaces" in line 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Limitation was introduced as “two opposite abutment surfaces.”
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8-16, and 18-20 would 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to show or make obvious a wearable decorative element comprising a male element with toothed elements abutting against two abutment surfaces inside the hollow body of a female body in combination with other limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights