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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 29 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 “internal smooth surface” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "21" and "25" have both been used to designate “central hole”. 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. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 of claim 1 states, “whereas the rear portion of the body…”. It is unclear why the term “whereas” is used in this instance and gives the impression that the front portion of the body is not cylindrical in some portions, as previously claimed. This confuses whether the previously claimed “a rear portion” and “the rear portion of the body” are the same element of the device, or different features. Further clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, lines 15-16, 16-17, 35 state, “along circumference thereof” or “along circumference”, rather than “along a circumference thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Line 23 of claim 1 states, “characterized in that said body is composed of:”. This statement adds no additional limitations to the claim and is deemed unnecessary by Examiner. It is recommended that this line be stricken from the claim.
Claim 1 states “a front portion of the body comprising:” in lines 24 and 33. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “the front portion of the body comprising:” to clarify the “front portion” being referred to is the same as the previously claimed “front portion”.
Claim 1 states, “rounded walls in a truncated front portion of the body” in line 25. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state, “rounded walls in the front portion of the body that is truncated” to clarify that the truncated portion currently being referred to is the same as the previously claimed truncated portion.
Claim 1 state, “thickened walls in a zone between the opening for the retainer lugs of a front portion of the body” in lines 30-31. Examiner recommends amending to state “thickened walls in a zone between the openings for the retainer lugs of a front portion of the body” to clarify positioning of the zone.
Claim 1 states, “in the openings the for the retainer lugs” in line 32. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 states, “having a recess in which” in line 34. The phrasing of this limitation makes it unclear whether the ring comprises the recess or the front portion of the body comprises the recess. Examiner recommends amending to clarify that the ring comprises the recess, as supported by the specification.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 35-36 of claim 1 states, “whereas in trapezoidal slots trapezoidal projections…”. It is unclear why the term “whereas” is used in this instance and gives the impression that the trapezoidal slots do not couple the halves of the rear portion of the body, as later claimed. Further clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 states “in an opposite directions”, rather than “in opposite directions” or “in an opposite direction” in lines 44-45 and line 50. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 states, “the longitudinal projections with having the ends curved in the opposite directions” in line 50. The phrasing of this limitation is unclear and creates confusion as to which longitudinal projections are being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 utilizes the word “whereas” in line 2 that appears grammatically improper and created confusion. 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 refers to “an elastic bushing with an internal hole with tapered and end surfaces conforming to surfaces inside the cap and the runner” in lines 6-8. Although Fig. 8 has been amended to allegedly show the elastic bushing 39, the drawings nor the specification provide support for “an internal hole with tapered and end surfaces conforming to surfaces inside the cap and the runner”. Further, Fig. 10, the only other figure to depict said elastic bushing 39, appears to be a separate entity entirely that is not shown in amended Fig. 8, and still offers no support for the current claim language. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to “runner guides with a cylindrical slot with point elements in front of the runner guides” in lines 13-14. There is no support found in Applicant’s disclosure that the “point elements” are “in front of the runner guides”. The point elements 12 are only depicted in Fig. 10 and not shown in the device’s assembled state, or very clearly shown at all. The same is considered of the cylindrical slot 11. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to a ring, “rotatably mounted on the smooth cylindrical surface of a front portion of the body” in lines 33-34, however the specification only states that a ring is “suitably mounted” on the smooth cylindrical portion of the body, not “rotatably mounted”. No further support is found in Applicant’s disclosure for this claim limitation. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to “trapezoidal slots trapezoidal projections of the halves of the rear portion of the body are located to fix said halves of the rear portion of the body together” in lines 35-37. However, Applicant’s current disclosure only teaches the “trapezoidal projection of the rear portion of the body for fixing the ring”, or the “trapezoidal slot of the ring to fix the rear portion of the body”, or the “trapezoidal projection of the halves of the rear portion of the body to fix by the ring”. This language does not support the claim “trapezoidal slots trapezoidal projections of the halves of the rear portion of the body are located to fix said halves of the rear portion of the body together” because the specification does not clarify that the halves of the rear portion of the body are being fixed together, only that they are being fixed or fixed to the ring. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
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 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 refers to “a threaded cap” in line 8. It is unclear whether this “threaded cap” is the same as the previously cited “a cap” in line 6 of claim 1, or another element of the device. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said bushing" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “said elastic bushing” as previously cited in line 6 of the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites “said bushing positioned in a threaded cap to be screwed on the runner on an opposite side” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether the bushing or the cap are to be “screwed on the runner” and further, what “an opposite side” refers to (i.e., an opposite side of the device, the cap, the bushing, or the runner?). Applicant’s disclosure offers no further clarification. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites “made of two halves” in line 10. It is unclear whether both the front and rear portions of the device comprise two halves, or just the rear portion comprises two halves. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to “a smooth cylindrical portion of a smaller diameter” in line 13, however it is unclear what the claimed “diameter” is being compared to in size. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the smooth internal surface” in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “the internal smooth surface” as previously claimed. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites “a through hole is made in a front portion” in lines 19-20. It is unclear what “front portion” is being referring to which “a through hole” is made. Further, it is unclear whether this “a through hole” is different from the previously claimed through hole. Clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites, “an end face of a rear portion” in line 20. It is unclear if this “a rear portion” is different from the previously claimed “the rear portion”. Clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the device interior” in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “into an interior of the device”. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fingers of the operator’s left hand” in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Lines 26-29 of claim 1 are phrased in a manner that is unclear and creates confusion for the Examiner. In particular, the statement “opposite to recessed for the fingers of the operator’s left hand in a place where said rounded walls adjoin a mouth” is unclear in the broader context of the previous lines of the claim. Clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to “an input hole” in line 28 that is not supported by the specification. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “a hole”. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 states, “projections of halves” in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state, “projections of the two halves”, as previously claimed. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 states, “to couple said halves of the rear portion of the body” in line 35. It is unclear whether the halves of the rear portion of the body are being coupler together or coupled to another portion of the device. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 states, “longitudinal projections and mating slots” in line 42, however Examiner understands these “mating slots” to be equated with the “longitudinal slots” 48 of Applicant’s specification. Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “longitudinal slots” so that there is proper support from the disclosure for the claim language. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 refers to “longitudinal projections” in lines 42 and 44. It is unclear whether these “longitudinal projections” are the same feature of the device or separate features. Examiner understands the “longitudinal projections” of line 44 having “ends curved in an opposite directions” to be the longitudinal projections 52 with ends 53 of Fig. 5. However, the longitudinal projections of line 42 appear to be the longitudinal projections 49 paired with longitudinal slots 48 of Fig. 6. Clarification of these elements is required, and further, the specification appears to attempt to clarify the difference between these longitudinal projections by specifying their positioning on the device. This could possibly help clarify the claim language. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal projections" in line 46 and “longitudinal projections” in line 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner understands these particular “longitudinal projections” to be the internal longitudinal projections on the brace 33 which have not yet been claimed, not the longitudinal projections 52 or 49 that are previously cited. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 states, “holes in an end face for attachment to the end face of the rear portion of the body for attachment in projections along circumference of an end face of the rear portion of the body to hold the brace” in lines 52-54. The lack of punctuation and indentation of the claims leads Examiner to be entirely unsure what exactly is being claimed by these limitations and how the features interact with each other. Further clarification through amendment is required. Claims 2-3 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 2 recites “an external surface of the rear portion” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not this “external surface of the rear portion” is the same as the previously claimed “external surface of the rear portion” in claim 1. If they are the same, Examiner recommends amending to reflect antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cylindrical brace" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to cite “the brace” as previously claimed.
Note Regarding Claims
Although no prior art has been applied in rejection of the claims, allowability cannot be determined at this time.
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 GABRIELLA G. B. RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00AM-6:00PM CST.
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, JERRAH C EDWARDS can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/G.G.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights