DETAILED ACTION
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
The examiner agrees the amendments overcome the prior art however new claims have been introduced with 112 issues.
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 19-20 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 19 recites the limitation "the at least one detection device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one detection device was previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming the detection device previously introduced in claim 1 is the first detection device and a second detection device is being added. Additionally, “a first mounting area and a second mounting area” is unclear. It’s unclear the relationship between these elements and the “corresponding mounting area” of claim 1. It’s unclear if the two mounting areas include the corresponding mounting area of claim 1 or if two new separate mounting areas are being introduced. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming the first area is the “corresponding mounting area” of claim 1.
In regards to claim 20, the relationship between “a detection device” of claim 1 and the “two detection devices” of claim 20 are unclear. It’s unclear if the two detection devices include the detection device of claim 1 or if two separate detection devices are being introduced. Further its unclear the relation ship between the “corresponding mounting area” of claim 1 and the “a first mounting area and at a second mounting area” It’s unclear if the two mounting areas include the corresponding mounting area of claim 1 or if two new separate mounting areas are being introduced. For the purposes of examination, the detection device of claim 1 is assumed to be the first detection device of claim 20 and the “corresponding mounting area” is assumed to be the first mounting area” of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the device as claimed in independent claim 1 of the instant application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references of record without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claims 1, the prior art of record, including Budzynski et al. (US 20030029210 A1) and Inoh (US 20160114526), teaches devices having much of the claimed structure, but fails to teach each and every limitation of the claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach “the first and second overmolded securing portions being formed with the activation part, wherein the first overmolded securing portion and the second overmolded securing portion are each an extension connected to the rest of the activation part and forming a cavity adapted to receive and locate the first bearing part and the second bearing part, respectively, the first bearing part comprising a first hole and the second bearing part comprising a second hole, the two extensions being separate and spaced apart”, in addition to the other claimed structure and functionality. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the structure and functionality of securing portions of the prior art to be configured and to function as claimed in the instant application without the use of hindsight and/or destroying the references. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose the device of claim 1.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights