DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 12/09/2025 following the Non-Final Rejection of 09/10/2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 were amended. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
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 Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to claim objections and claim limitations interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f) of 09/10/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments made to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a support base body and support arms corresponding to the sliding groove” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, the figures only show support arms corresponding to sliding grooves; not where a plurality of support arms correspond to a singular sliding groove.
No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 2, 4-5, 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “in a circumferential direction” but should likely read “in [[a]] the circumferential direction”; since a circumferential direction has already been introduced in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the sides, close to the first groove walls, of the support surfaces” but should likely read “wherein [[the]] sides, close to the first groove walls, of the support surfaces”.
Claim 5 line 4 recites “the axial guide mechanism” but should likely read “the first axial guide mechanism”.
Claim 9 line 3 recites “the axial guide mechanism” but should likely read “the second axial guide mechanism”.
Claim 12 line 4 recites “the axial guide mechanism” but should likely read “the second axial guide mechanism”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 19-20, the limitation “a support base body and support arms corresponding to the sliding groove” fails the written description requirement and is concerned new matter as it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. While there is support for “a support base body and support arms corresponding to the sliding grooves”, there is not support for a plurality of support arms corresponding to a singular sliding groove, as currently required by the claim.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claims 1 (twice at line 6 and again at line 14) and Claim 4 (at line 2 and line 3), the limitation “the first groove walls” renders the claim indefinite. This limitation lacks antecedence since only “one or more first groove walls” has been previously introduced (see claim 1 lines 3-4). Further, this limitation renders the claim indefinite since the phrase “the first groove walls” references a plurality of first groove walls while the phrase “one or more first groove walls”, introduces one or more of these groove walls (i.e., at least one). This leads to a lack of certainty as to what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are and whether the invention requires one or more first groove walls or a [plurality of] first groove walls.
Note: simply amending “the first groove walls” to read “the one or more first groove walls” could result in written description and/or indefinite issues depending on the context of this amendment.
Regarding Claim 1 lines 19-20, the limitation “a support base body and support arms corresponding to the sliding groove” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a plurality of support arms would correspond to a singular sliding groove as required by the claim, in light of the instant disclosure. Further, the limitations which follow the claim limitation appear to describe a singular support arm for a given sliding groove which would conflict with the limitation above.
Regarding Claims 1 (at lines 20, 24 and 28), the limitation “the sliding groove” renders the claim indefinite. This limitation lacks antecedence since the limitation only “an inner side of the shield is provided with second groove walls opposite to the first groove walls, a sliding groove is formed between each first groove wall and a corresponding second groove wall” in claim 1 lines 13-15 introduces one or more sliding grooves (since there can be one or more first groove walls). Further, this limitation renders the claim indefinite since the phrase “the sliding groove” references a singular of sliding groove while one or more sliding grooves has been previously introduced in claim 1 lines 13-15 as noted above. This leads to a lack of certainty as to what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are since it is unclear if the limitation “the sliding groove” is establishing that only a singular sliding groove exists for the claimed invention, is establishing limitations for just one of the possible plurality of sliding grooves, or is establishing limitations which would apply to all of the possible plurality of sliding grooves.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “wherein two sliding grooves are evenly distributed in a circumferential direction” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “two sliding grooves” referenced/introduced in the claim are introducing two sliding grooves that are distinct from the one sliding groove or at least one sliding grooves introduced in claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends upon) or is stating that there are two sliding grooves of the previously introducing one or more sliding grooves. Further, if it is the latter case, it is unclear if the limitations established for “the sliding groove” in claim 1 lines 19-29 would encompass just one of the two sliding grooves or would be applicable to both of the two sliding grooves of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the limiting protrusions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only “one or more limiting protrusions” has been previously introduced.
Note: simply amending “the limiting protrusions” to read “the one or more limiting protrusions” could result in written description and/or indefinite issues depending on the context of this amendment
Regarding Claim 10 (at lines 4 and 6) and Claim 13 (at lines 4 and 6), the limitation “the through grooves” renders the claims indefinite. This limitation lacks antecedence since only “one or more through grooves” has been previously introduced (see claim 10 line 3 or claim 13 line 3). Further, this limitation renders the claim indefinite since the phrase “the through grooves” references a plurality of through grooves while the phrase “one or more through grooves”, introduces one or more of these groove walls (i.e., at least one). This leads to a lack of certainty as to what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are and whether the invention requires one or more first groove walls or a [plurality of] through grooves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Note: see rationale provided in the prior Office Action of 09/10/2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745