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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “components comprises hinge cups” should read --components comprise hinge cups--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 “quick-connect hinge”. The term “quick” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the curve” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --a curve--.
Claim 4 recites “the curve” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --a curve--.
Claim 5 recites “the curves” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --curves--.
Claim 5 recites “the curves of a human’s adductors” while parent claim 2 recites “adductor contouring”. It is unclear whether applicant intends to reference the same or different adductor contouring/curvature of claim 2 in the limitation of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “the anatomically inferior corners” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --anatomically inferior corners--.
Claim 8 recites “the inside” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --an inside--.
Claim 9 recites male and female hinge components, while parent claim 1 recites a hinge. It is unclear whether the male and female hinge components are intended to be part of the same hinge as that of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the anatomically superior edge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --an anatomically superior edge--.
Claim 11 recites “the anatomically superior face” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --an anatomically superior face--.
Claim 14 recites “the bottom edge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to obviate this rejection, the examiner suggests applicant amend this limitation to read --a bottom edge--.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against the claims at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous clarity issues noted above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10238527 (Paramet) teaches a device for restraining testicles for stimulation comprising a hinge and jaws
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791