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 .
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, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 17 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 11 and the specification, the phrases:
“external housing comprises a first, second, and third segment”,
“the first, second, and third segments are fixed to each other via segment couplers to align the first, second, and third segments with the first, second, and third individually electrically insulted segments”, and
“turn each other independent of the first, second, and third segments of the external housing”
are not supported by the specification and are new matter. Paragraph [0018] discloses the “external housing 132 that may extend between a first coupler 134 and a second coupler”. Paragraph [0018] and the rest of the specification make no mention of housing 132 being made up of segments that are connected to each other with couplers and also align with the insulated segments of the internal drive. Figure 2A shows the external housing 132 and there does not appear to be any segment structures in housing 132 that would also align with the internal drive segments. Paragraph [0019] line 2 discloses the external housing is removed in Figure 2B so the segments shown cannot be part of the external housing. The internal drive appears to be the only structure with segments.
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, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 17 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, it is unclear what structures represent the first, second, and third segments of the external housing that align with the first, second, and third insulated segments of the internal drive.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, it is unclear what structures represent segment couplers that fix the first, second, and third segments of the external housing.
With regards to claim 8, the first paragraph is unclear. Claim 8 depends from claim 2 which already discloses the first, second, and third insulated segments and that they each have a segment shaft body. The first paragraph re-states this but gives each shaft body a number name (first segment shaft body). Adding the number name to the limitation does not further limit what has already been disclosed in claim 2. Claim 8 should use the phrases “the segment shaft body of the first insulated segment”, “the segment shaft body of the second insulated segment”, and “the segment shaft body of the third insulated segment” to correspond with the language of claim 2 and then delete any redundant limitations already disclosed in claims 1 and 2. It is noted that claim 17 (which is very similar to claim 8) was amended to change the dependency to the independent claim. Was this supposed to happen for claim 8 as well?
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “a third segment shaft body” is unclear. Claim 2 discloses each of the insulted segments has a segment shaft body. As written, the third segment has two different shaft bodies which is not supported.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the first segment shaft body", "the second segment shaft body", and "the segment coupler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
With regards to claim 17, the phrase “turn with each other independent of the external housing” is unclear. The last line of claim 11 discloses this limitation. Applicant’s intentions are unclear with regards to this phrase being re-disclosed.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 17 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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
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 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 on (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.
19 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724