DETAILED ACTION
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 (lines 7-9) recites “a first resilient biasing means arranged to bias the shuttle for movement away from a base of the well when the lug is inserted into the well”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine what other structural element the first resilient biasing means structurally engages in order to “bias the shuttle for movement away from a base of the well when the lug is inserted into the well”. It is unclear as to what other element the biasing means abuts in order to transmit a resilient biasing force to the shuttle. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim.
Claim 1 (lines 16-23) recites “wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a movable stop having: a first position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis is blocked by the movable stop so that the locking elements interact with the first surface profile of the shuttle, and a second position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis opposite the insertion direction is extended to cause the locking elements to interact with a second surface profile of the shuttle whereby the locking elements move from their extended position to their retracted position”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine what structural features define such “movable stop” such that “in a first position” the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis “is blocked so that the locking elements interact with the first surface profile of the shuttle”, and in “a second position” the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis “is extended to cause the locking elements to interact with a second surface profile of the shuttle whereby the locking elements move from their extended position to their retracted position”. It is unclear as to what structurally defines the “movable stop” such that it is movable between such first and second positions relative to the lug and the locking elements; and unclear as what structural elements actuate such movement and retain the movable stop within each of the first and second positions. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim. Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Examiner notes that claim 1 must include the limitations of claims 2, 5 and 10 in order to overcome such 35 USC 112 rejections.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships which render the claims indefinite are as follows:
Claim 1 (lines 16-23) recites “wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a movable stop having: a first position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis is blocked by the movable stop so that the locking elements interact with the first surface profile of the shuttle, and a second position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis opposite the insertion direction is extended to cause the locking elements to interact with a second surface profile of the shuttle whereby the locking elements move from their extended position to their retracted position”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine how the movable stop structurally engages each of the lug and the shuttle in order to enable movement of the movable stop between the first and second positions and movement of the shuttle relative to the lug and the locking elements. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim. Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 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:
As to claim 1 as best understood, Billot (US 3,883,097) discloses the claimed coupling mechanism with the exception of comprising a first resilient biasing means arranged to bias the shuttle for movement away from a base of the well when the lug is inserted into the well; and wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a movable stop having: a first position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis is blocked by the movable stop so that the locking elements interact with the first surface profile of the shuttle, and a second position in which the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis opposite the insertion direction is extended to cause the locking elements to interact with a second surface profile of the shuttle whereby the locking elements move from their extended position to their retracted position.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupling mechanism disclosed by Billot to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1-17 set forth in the previous Office action regarding the first and second positions of the movable stop, Attorney argues that the specification and drawings clearly disclose the structural features and structural relationships which provide for such functionality, and thus claim 1 is clear and definite.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim language itself must be clear and definite; the drawings and description within the specification fails to remedy indefiniteness within the claim language and limitations of the claims themselves. While the specification and drawings do indeed thoroughly describe and enable the claimed invention as set forth by 35 USC 112 first paragraph, the claim language of claim 1 itself is indefinite and unclear as set forth under 35 USC 112 second paragraph.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine what structural features define such “movable stop” such that “in a first position” the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis “is blocked so that the locking elements interact with the first surface profile of the shuttle”, and in “a second position” the biased movement of the shuttle along the insertion axis “is extended to cause the locking elements to interact with a second surface profile of the shuttle whereby the locking elements move from their extended position to their retracted position”. It is unclear as to what structurally defines the “movable stop” such that it is movable between such first and second positions relative to the lug and the locking elements; and unclear as what structural elements actuate such movement and retain the movable stop within each of the first and second positions. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim as set forth by 35 USC 112 second paragraph.
Furthermore, claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which allow one to properly determine how the movable stop structurally engages each of the lug and the shuttle in order to enable movement of the movable stop between the first and second positions and movement of the shuttle relative to the lug and the locking elements. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claim as set forth by 35 USC 112 second paragraph.
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 MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571)270-5788. 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.
03/19/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619