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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 & 3-8 are pending in the application. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 7-8 are entered as “New”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) and/or PCT Article 7, Paragraph (1). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The structure required for the shuttle to advance and retract, as claimed in Claim 1; see 112 rejections below for clarification
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 70E is labeled as Figure 7E. Applicant should amend the figure to be “FIG. 70E”. Applicant states a new figure was submitted, but Examiner does not see an amended figure in any submission.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows,
“coupling member” in Claims 1 & 7-8, where the generic placeholder is “member”; the functional language is “adapted to move within the helical groove and between the first end and the second end of the helical groove to cause the plunger to translate axially within the sleeve as the plunger is rotated”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided; instant application Paragraph 00139 and Figure 16A show the coupling member as a coupling pin, providing sufficient modifying structure
“interlocking or interconnecting structure” in Claims 1 & 8, where the generic placeholder is “structure”; the functional language is “interlocking or interconnecting”, and sufficient modifying structure is not provided; instant application Paragraph 00186 describes the structure as a pin
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 & 3-8 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.
As to Claim 1, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a shuttle contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 1 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
As to Claim 7, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “a shuttle contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 7 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
As to Claim 8, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “an axially reciprocating shuttle…such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to either block or permit rotation of the sleeve.” This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 8 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
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 1-6 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the shuttle advances and retracts to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, in Lines 21-22, is indefinite. For reasons similar to the 112(a) rejection above, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, it is not clear how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. Since this structure is not fully disclosed, it is not clear how the structure is integrated into the pump embodiment containing the reciprocating shuttle.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, it is not clear how the shuttle 7005 is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, it is not clear how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described or shown.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 7 is indefinite.
As to Claim 8, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by omitting essential detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims “an axially reciprocating shuttle…such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to either block or permit rotation of the sleeve”. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how the shuttle is able to advance and retract.
Instant application Paragraphs 00181-00186 describe how the reciprocating shuttle system works. Instant application Paragraph 00180 describes the reciprocating shuttle structure as replacing the flexible interlock of a previously described embodiment. However, the original disclosure lacks sufficient written description in how the reciprocating shuttle replaces the flexible interlock.
First, in order for the shuttle to reciprocate, using the shuttle pin in the shuttle cam slot, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand additional structure is required which is stationary with respect to the claimed pump as a whole. This additional structure is what prevents the shuttle from just simply rotating with the output gear as the output gear rotates, forcing the shuttle to reciprocate within the additional structure. Instant application Paragraph 00186 alludes to this structure by stating “It should be noted that the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71 would of course need to be included but they are not shown here for simplicity.” However, this is not sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into the claimed pump in a manner which replaces the flexible interlock. A pump with a reciprocating shuttle –Embodiment 1--, and a pump with a flexible interlock –Embodiment 2--would be considered two different embodiments, requiring a description on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 2 once the flexible interlock is removed, which has not been provided. As such, sufficient written description is not provided on how “the structure for restricting movement of the shuttle 7005 a direction other than along the arrows indicated in Figure 71” is integrated into Embodiment 1.
Second, the drawings do not make up for the specification deficiency, and also conflict with each other. When looking at Figures 72A-72C, the shuttle 7005 is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009 being located within the shuttle cam slot 7008. However, Figures 70A-70L show the shuttle 7005 not connected to the output gear 7002. As illustrated, sufficient written description has not been provided, since it is not clear how the shuttle can be connected to the output gear, as shown in 72A-72C, and not connected to the output gear, as shown in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 72A-72C appear to show shuttle 7005 within the center of output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is able to interact with detent 7006 “to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve”, as claimed, since the disclosed detent 7006 is outside of the claimed output gear 7002 in Figures 70A-70L.
Figures 70A-70L appear to show the shuttle 7005 outside of the output gear 7002. If this is the intended configuration, sufficient written description has not been provided on how the shuttle is connected to the output gear 7002 via the shuttle pin 7009, since the shuttle pin 7009 must extend through the sleeve 7001 in this configuration. The structure required to show how the shuttle pin extends through the sleeve, while still allowing the output gear and sleeve to work as intended has not been sufficiently described.
For at least the reasons stated above, Claim 8 is rejected for lack of sufficient written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the invention is and how it works.
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 & 3-8 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “a shuttle contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve” in Lines 20-21, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 7, the limitation “an axially reciprocating shuttle…such that the shuttle advances and retracts as the output gear rotates to either block or permit rotation of the sleeve” in Lines 20-21, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 8, the limitation “a shuttle contacting the shuttle cam slot, such that the shuttle advances and retracts as to restrict or permit rotation of the sleeve” in Lines 20-22, is indefinite, in light of the specification.
As described in the 112(a) rejection above, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the claimed shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation. As such, it is not clear how the shuttle is able to advance and retract during operation, rendering the claim indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a)/112(b) rejections, Applicant believes instant application Paragraphs 181-186 provide sufficient support for the claimed invention, but does not provide any evidence or examples from Paragraphs 181-186 in support of their argument. Applicant’s argument is merely conclusory. Examiner disagrees, but is unable to respond to Applicant’s arguments due to their conclusory nature. Examiner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine how the claimed shuttle is capable of advancing or retracting based on the written description, and Paragraphs 181-186 –in addition to the rest of the original disclosure—do not provide sufficient written description.
Applicant argues the drawings do not conflict with each other, because Figures 72A-72C do not show shuttle 7005 within the output gear. Examiner disagrees. Instant application Paragraph 00186 describes cam structure 7007 –see Figure 71--as being part of output gear 7002. As such, Figures 72A-72C show shuttle 7005 within the output gear 7002/7007. At the very least, shuttle 7005 is centered on output gear 7002/7007 in Figures 72A-72C. Figures 70A-70L show shuttle 7005 offset from output gear 7002/7007.
In light of the above, the figures do conflict with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783