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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/1/2026 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected Group.
Drawings
The objection(s) to the drawings is/are withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4 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 recites “an opening key which in the initial configuration is slidingly fitted onto the closing means and is axially constrained thereto so as to rotate freely around the closing mean without prismatic coupling”, and “the closing means is inserted matingly into a seat of the opening key to realize prismatic coupling, is rotationally engaged with said closing means” this is unclear. What is prismatic coupling? The term “prismatic coupling” in claim 1 is used but is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term. Prismatic coupling is directed to a prismatic joint which allows linear motion while constraining rotation. The claim recites that the prismatic coupling then allows for the opening key to be rotationally engaged with the closing means but prismatic coupling doesn’t allow for rotation. Thusly is it unclear if both a prismatic coupling and rotation can both be true and thusly how the structures are formed and interact with each other. If the relationship between the opening key and closing means is separated by twisting/rotation then it is not a prismatic joint and would not be prismatically coupled because the coupling is done so as to be rotationally engaged and not only linear motion along a single axis. Additionally, a prismatic coupling/couple is also directed to integrated optics for coupling light into or out of a thin-film waveguide using a prism which is no way applied to the instant application and adds to the lack of clarity.
Claim 1 recites “a connecting portion provided with an end edge” and “wherein an annular end edge at the terminal end of the connection portion”, this is unclear. Are the end edge and the annular end edge the same structure? Is the annular end edge a portion of the previously recited end edge?
Due the lack of clarity the examiner is unable to make a determination of the structure required to meet the claim limitations.
Claims not specification mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 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.
Applicant arguments to the figures are addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights