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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed 07/30/2026.
Claims 1 and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are being examined in this Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/30/2026 has been entered.
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: "a driving component", "a second transmission component", "a driving resilient component", "a stopping resilient component", and "a third transmission component" in claims 1 and 15. 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 1-20 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 the limitation “the third transmission component is driven by the second transmission component to rotate along the first sliding direction together with the second transmission component” in lines 33-35. It is unclear how the second transmission component rotates along the first sliding direction when the sliding direction appears to be an axial movement. Examiner interprets “the first sliding direction” to be the first rotating direction.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the third transmission component is driven by the second transmission component to rotate along the first sliding direction together with the second transmission component” in lines 38-41. It is unclear how the second transmission component rotates along the first sliding direction when the sliding direction appears to be an axial movement. Examiner interprets “the first sliding direction” to be the first rotating direction.
All remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention including the following features:
Regarding Claim 1, a driving resilient component arranged between the first transmission component and the second transmission component, the driving resilient component being forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along a first rotating direction and then released to resiliently recover.
Regarding Claim 15, a driving resilient component arranged between the first transmission component and the second transmission component, the driving resilient component being forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along a first rotating direction and then released to resiliently recover.
The combination of the claimed limitations is novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner notes that the limitations indicated as containing allowable subject above are done so in context of the claims as a whole – e.g. the cited portions of claim 1 are allowable in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered
In regard to Applicant’s argument:
“Accordingly, Applicant submits that interpreting these claim terms under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is improper, as they are not intended to invoke means-plus-function treatment, and are sufficiently definite and supported by structural disclosure. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).”
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Section 2181 (I) of MPEP states “Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution.”
For example, claim 1 “a driving component coupled to the first transmission component and for driving the first transmission component to rotate”, this limitation recites the generic placeholder “a driving component” which is “coupled to the first transmission component and for driving the first transmission component to rotate” providing function without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The 112(f) interpretation is maintained as stated above.
In regard to Applicant’s argument:
“For the above reasons, Applicant believes the amended claims 1 and 15 of the present application are allowable and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-12 of the present application are dependent on claim 1 of the present application and should be allowed if claim 1 of the present application is found allowable. Claims 16-18 and 20 of the present application are dependent on claim 15 of the present application and should be allowed if claim 15 of the present application is found allowable. Accordingly, Applicant also respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.”
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Golovan whose telephone number is (571)272-2119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm Alt. Fri off.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/MARK GOLOVAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights