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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the current state of claim 1, claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18-20 have been rejoined.
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 inner and outer rings, of claims 1 and 11
The vented coupler, of claims 6 and 15
It is noted that some of these items may be shown in the Figures and are not labeled. Labeling these items overcomes the issues. If an item is important enough to claim, it is important enough to be labeled in the Figures and discussed the Detailed Description.
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.
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 1-20 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, the phrase “segments turn with each other” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the segments to turn with each other. Claims 1 and 11 now disclose first and second body engagement portions of the segment couplers and, as written, the first and second body engagement portions are not disclosed as engaging the individual segments which is the structure that allows for the “turning with each other” function to take place. Claims 1 and 11 needs to at least broadly disclose the structural relationship between the first and second body engagement portions and the individual segments because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, the phrase “supported by inner and outer rings” is unclear. It is unclear what structure incorporates the rings. It is unclear if the rings engage with each other as there is no structural relationship claimed. Is the inner ring inside the outer ring? If the rings are parts of the couplers, it is unclear what the ring’s relationships with the first and second body engagement portions are. Are the first and second body engagement portions connected to the inner ring as the rotate with the inner ring? Also, as written, the rings can be considered an intended use because they are introduced in the form of a function of the couplers and none of the existing structures comprise the rings.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, the phrase “first and second body engagement portions rotate with the inner ring and the outer ring remains fixed to the external housing” is unclear. Earlier in the claims, the “segments turn with each other independent of the external housing” is disclosed. It is unclear if the turning function of the segments is the same or a different function than the rotation of the engagement’s portions with the inner ring. As written, the rotating function is in addition to the turning function with is not supported. Claims 1 and 11 need to disclose the following: the couplers each have an outer ring that is fixed to the external housing, an inner ring that is rotatably received in the outer ring, and first and second body engagement portions engaged with the inner ring so as the rotate with the inner ring, and the individual segments are respectively engaged with the inner ring so that the individual segments turn/rotate with each other independent of the external housing.
With regards to claims 2 and 8, claim 1 discloses the segments and the couplers in an unrelated relationship and now claim 2 discloses they are engaged. Items cannot be unrelated at first and then engaged later on. Claim 1 needs to disclose their structural relationship. Claim 1 also further defines the couplers as having first and second body engagement portions. Claims 2 and 8 needs to be amended to utilize the first and second body engagement portions and not the broad coupler disclosure. Claims 12 and 17 have the same issues.
With regards to claims 3, 4, and 6, claim 1 now discloses “couplers” plural. Claims 3, 4, and 6 needs to acknowledge the plural disclosure. Claims 13, 14, and 15 have the same issue.
With regards to claim 3, the couplers have and first and second body engagement portions and are assumed to have rings. Which parts of the couplers include the metallic materials? Claim 12 has the same issue.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, claim 1 now discloses inner and outer rings and first and second body engagement portions. It is unclear if the bearing assembly and carrier assembly respectively represent the same or different structures than the rings and engagement portions. As written, the have the rings, portions, and separately have both assemblies which is not supported. Claims 4 and 5 need to be amended to correspond with the amendments to claim 1. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase “supporting the bearing assembly proximate to the segment coupler” is unclear. The bearing assembly (rings) is part of the coupler. How can an item be proximate to itself? Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 6, it is unclear what structure allows for the coupler to be “vented”? Claim 15 has the same issue.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the first segment shaft body" and "the second segment shaft body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 20, it is unclear how a single attachment can be a plurality of cutting attachments? The device is not able to comprise more than one attachment at a time. It is also unclear what structure presents the different attachments?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art including IE 86807 including the couplers with the rings and engagement portions and their structural relationships with the individual segments that allows the segments to rotate with each other and relative to the external housing in combination with the remaining limitations.
Claims
It is to be noted that allowability for claims 6, 15, and 20 cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
02 July 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights