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 the Applicant’s amendment filed on March 3, 2026.
Claims 1 and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are being examined in this Office Action.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0191770 A1, herein Moberg) further in view of Yang (Pub. No. US 2022/0118176 A1, Herein Yang A).
Regarding Claim 1, Moberg discloses,
a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector to slide relative to a reservoir of
the auto-injector (Fig. 22, Paragraph [0170]), the driving mechanism comprising:
a first transmission component (2302);
a driving component coupled to the first transmission component and for driving the first
transmission component to rotate (2301);
a second transmission component rotatably disposed apart from the first transmission
component (the central gear from the set of gears 2303);
a third transmission component fixedly connected to the second transmission component, the
third transmission component being driven by the second transmission component to rotate together with the second transmission component when the second transmission component rotates (Gear 2303 connected to the lead screw 2304);
a sliding component (2304) at least partially slidably disposed inside the third transmission component and movably engaged with the third transmission component, the sliding component being connected to the plunger (“The threads of the lead screw 2304 are engaged with threads (not shown) in a slide 2306” - Paragraph [0170]), the sliding component being driven by the third transmission component to slide relative to the second transmission component along a first sliding direction when the third transmission component is driven by the second transmission component to rotate along the first sliding direction together with the second transmission component (“Thus, the torque d' of the lead screw 2304 is transferred to the slide 2306 causing the slide 2306 to move in an axial direction, generally parallel to the drive shaft 2302 of the motor 2301” - Paragraph [0013], Fig. 2); and
a supporting component (“housing (not shown)” – Paragraph [0170]) comprising a guiding portion (The slide 2306 is engaged with a slot (not shown)” – Paragraph [0170]), the sliding component passing through the guiding portion, and the guiding portion being configured to guide the sliding component to slide along the first sliding direction without rotation (“The slide 2306 is engaged with a slot (not shown) in the housing (not shown) to prevent the slide 2306 from rotating, but allowing it to translate along the length of the lead screw 2304. Thus, the torque d' of the lead screw 2304 is transferred to the slide 2306 causing the slide 2306 to move in an axial direction, generally parallel to the drive shaft 2302 of the motor 2301” - Paragraph [0170]).
Moberg does not expressly disclose, 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 or released to resiliently recover;
a stopping resilient component disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second
transmission component, the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction, the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover;
Yang A teaches a driving resilient component (100) arranged between the first transmission (See annotated Fig. 7 below) component and the second transmission component (Annotated Fig. 7), 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 or released to resiliently recover (Annotated Fig. 7, Paragraph [0049], as the driving unit, 100, pivots between the A and B directions, the driving arms, 110, switch between engaging the driving wheel forward, acting as the driving resilient component, and stopping) Examiner interprets as the arms 110a-b are engaged in the first deforming direction, as in Fig. 7, with the first transmission component 130, the arms 110c-d are released from engagement with wheel teeth 131 and recovering in a second direction;
a stopping resilient component (100) disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second
transmission component (Annotated Fig. 7), the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction (Annotated Fig. 7, as the driving unit 100 pivots between the A and B directions, the driving arms, 110, switch between engaging the wheel forward and stopping, acting as the stopping resilient component), the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover (“the driving end of 110c acts on the steep surface of the ratchet teeth. At this time, the driving unit 100 stops pivoting and the driving arms 110a and/or 110b stop engaging the wheel teeth 131, and the driving wheel 130 stops rotating.” - Paragraph [0078], Annotated Fig. 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by Moberg so that it comprises 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 or released to resiliently recover; and
a stopping resilient component disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second transmission component, the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction, the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover as taught by Yang A so that the device may have multiple infusion increments or infusion rates (Yang A, Paragraph [0101]).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1,
Modified Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the driving resilient component and the stopping resilient component are integrally connected to each other to form an integral resilient structure.
Yang A teaches wherein the driving resilient component and the stopping resilient component are integrally connected to each other to form an integral resilient structure (Fig.1, 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by Moberg wherein the driving resilient component and the stopping resilient component are integrally connected to each other to form an integral resilient structure as taught by Yang A so that there may be an accurate drug infusion rate (Yang A, Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 7, Moberg discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1.
Moberg does not expressly disclose wherein the driving resilient component is resiliently deformed by the first transmission component along a first deforming direction identical to the first rotating direction, and the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component along a second deforming direction opposite to the first deforming direction.
Yang A teaches wherein the driving resilient component is resiliently deformed by the first transmission component along a first deforming direction identical to the first rotating direction, and the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component along a second deforming direction opposite to the first deforming direction (Annotated Fig. 7, Paragraph [0051], as the driving unit 100 pivots between the A and B directions, the driving arms, 110, switch between engaging the driving wheel forward and stopping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by Moberg wherein the driving resilient component is resiliently deformed by the first transmission component along a first deforming direction identical to the first rotating direction, and the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component along a second deforming direction opposite to the first deforming direction as taught by Yang A so that patients can control the drug infusion rate (Yang A, Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 8, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first transmission component, the second transmission component and the third transmission component are accommodated inside the supporting component (Moberg, Fig. 22, Paragraph [0170]). Examiner interprets the housing disclosed to encompass the entire transmission structure to act as the supporting component.
Regarding Claim 9, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1, wherein a first rotating axis of the first transmission component is parallel to a second rotating axis of the second transmission component, and the first sliding direction is parallel to an extending direction of the second rotating axis of the second transmission component (Moberg, d, d’, Fig. 22, Paragraph [0170]).
Regarding Claim 11, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a reducer coupled between the driving component and the first transmission component (Moberg, “motor with an attached gear box” – Paragraph [0170], Fig. 22, 2301).
Regarding Claim 12, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 11, wherein the reducer is a gearbox (Moberg, “motor with an attached gear box” – Paragraph [0170], 2301, Fig. 22).
Regarding Claim 15, Moberg in view of Yang A discloses an auto-injector comprising:
a reservoir (2308);
a plunger slidably disposed inside the reservoir (2307); and
a driving mechanism for driving the plunger to slide relative to the reservoir (Fig. 22, Paragraph [0074]), the driving mechanism comprising:
a first transmission component (2303);
a driving component coupled to the first transmission component and for driving the first transmission component to rotate (2301);
a second transmission component rotatably disposed apart from the first transmission component (the central gear from the set of gears 2303);
a third transmission component fixedly connected to the second transmission component, the third transmission component being driven by the second transmission component to rotate together with the second transmission component when the second transmission component rotates (gear 2303 connected to the lead screw 2304);
a sliding component (2304) at least partially slidably disposed inside the third transmission component and movably engaged with the third transmission component (Fig. 22), the sliding component being connected to the plunger (“The threads of the lead screw 203 are engaged with threads [not shown] in a plunger slide 204” - Paragraph [0013]), the sliding component being driven by the third transmission component to slide relative to the second transmission component along a first sliding direction when the third transmission component is driven by the second transmission component to rotate along the first sliding direction together with the second transmission component (“Thus the torque of the lead screw 203 is transferred to the slide 204 which causes it to move in an axial direction d', parallel to the drive shaft 201a of the motor 201” - Paragraph [0013], Fig. 2); and
a supporting component (“housing (not shown)” – Paragraph [0170]) comprising a guiding portion (The slide 2306 is engaged with a slot (not shown)” – Paragraph [0170]), the sliding component passing through the guiding portion, and the guiding portion being configured to guide the
sliding component to slide along the first sliding direction without rotation (The slide 2306 is engaged with a slot (not shown) in the housing (not shown) to prevent the slide 2306 from rotating, but allowing it to translate along the length of the lead screw 2304. Thus, the torque d' of the lead screw 2304 is transferred to the slide 2306 causing the slide 2306 to move in an axial direction, generally parallel to the drive shaft 2302 of the motor 2301 - Paragraph [0170]).
Moberg doesn’t expressly disclose 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 or released to resiliently recover;
a stopping resilient component disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second transmission component, the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction, the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover;
Yang A teaches a driving resilient component (100) arranged between the first transmission component (Annotated Fig. 7) and the second transmission component (Annotated Fig. 7), 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 or released to resiliently recover (Annotated Fig. 7, Paragraph [0049], as the driving unit 100 pivots between the A and B directions, the driving arms, 110, switch between engaging the driving wheel forward and stopping) Examiner interprets as the arms 110a-b are engaged in the first deforming direction, as in Fig. 7 with the first transmission component 130, the arms 110c-d are released from engagement with wheel teeth 131 and recovering in a second direction;
a stopping resilient component (100) disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second transmission component (Annotated Fig. 7), the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction (Annotated Fig. 7, as the driving unit 100 pivots between the A and B directions, the driving arms, 110, switch between engaging the wheel forward and stopping), the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover (“the driving end of 110c acts on the steep surface of the ratchet teeth. At this time, the driving unit 100 stops pivoting and the driving arms 110a and/or 110b stop engaging the wheel teeth 131, and the driving wheel 130 stops rotating.” - Paragraph [0078]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as taught by Moberg so that it comprises 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 or released to resiliently recover; and
a stopping resilient component disposed adjacent to an outer periphery of the second transmission component, the stopping resilient component being forced by the second transmission component to resiliently deform when the driving resilient component is forced by the first transmission component to resiliently deform to push the second transmission component to rotate along the first rotating direction, the stopping resilient component engaging with the second transmission component for stopping the second transmission component from rotating along a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction when the driving resilient component is released to resiliently recover as taught by Yang A so that the device may have multiple infusion increments or infusion rates (Yang A, Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the auto-injector of claim 15, wherein the driving resilient component is resiliently deformed by the first transmission component along a first deforming direction identical to the first rotating direction, and the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component along a second deforming direction opposite to the first deforming direction (Yang A, Annotated Fig. 7, Paragraph [0051]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg in view of Yang A, further in view of Yang (Pub. No. US 2019/0117881 A1, Herein Yang B)
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 1.
Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component.
Yang B teaches a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component (3, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as taught by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that it includes a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component so that it may recognize the movement and monitor the administration of the drug (Yang B, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Moberg in view Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 2.
Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor comprises an abutting component, the abutting component is abutted by the stopping resilient component when the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component.
Yang B teaches wherein the sensor comprises an abutting component (5, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as taught by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that the sensor comprises an abutting component so that the sensor may recognize the movement of the swinging part (Yang B, Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the auto-injector of claim 15. Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose wherein the driving mechanism
further comprising a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component.
Yang B teaches a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component (3, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as taught by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that it includes a sensor configured to sense a rotating movement of the second transmission component so that it may recognize the movement and monitor the administration of the drug (Yang B, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the auto-injector of claim 16.
Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor comprises an abutting component, the abutting component is abutted by the stopping resilient component when the stopping resilient component is resiliently deformed by the second transmission component.
Yang B teaches wherein the sensor comprises an abutting component (5, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that the sensor comprises an abutting component so that the sensor may recognize the movement of the swinging part (Yang B, Paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moberg in view of Yang A further in view of Wood et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0054740 A1, herein Wood)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the driving mechanism of claim 4.
Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose wherein the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure.
Wood teaches wherein the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure (“The motor 18 and related gear train components 38 and the outermost drive screw 70 of the plunger driver assembly 30 can be mounted with respect to each other via a mounting plate 66 or other mechanism secured to the baseplate 12.” - Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure as taught by Wood so that the size of the pump mechanism is minimized (Wood, Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Moberg in view of Yang A discloses the auto-injector of claim 15, wherein the driving resilient component and the stopping resilient component are integrally connected to each other to form an integral resilient structure (Yang A, Fig.1, 100).
Modified Moberg in view of Yang A does not expressly disclose wherein the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure.
Wood teaches wherein the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure (“The motor 18 and related gear train components 38 and the outermost drive screw 70 of the plunger driver assembly 30 can be mounted with respect to each other via a mounting plate 66 or other mechanism secured to the baseplate 12.” - Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify a driving mechanism for driving a plunger of an auto-injector as disclosed by modified Moberg in view of Yang A so that the supporting component further comprises a mounting portion for mounting the integral resilient structure as taught by Wood so that the size of the pump mechanism is minimized (Wood, Paragraph [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 10, 13, 14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 6 and 19, a resilient component and stopping component being partially exposed out of the mounting portion in the specific arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, a first transmission component being a cam in the arrangement.
Regarding claim 13, a sliding component that works in combination with the guiding portion in the arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, an internal thread on the inner periphery of the third component that works in combination with the sliding component in the arrangement.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“Claims 1 and 15 of the present application are amended by replacing "resiliently cover" with "resiliently recover" to correct the typographical errors.”
This argument is persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for Claims 1 and 15 are withdrawn.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“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:
Examiner believes that despite not using the word “means”, the claims limitation recites functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that
“Yang A is not configured to be forced by a first portion of the driving wheel 130 (on which the front driving teeth 131 are formed, and which is regarded as the first transmission component of the present application by the Examiner) to rotate a second portion of the driving wheel 130 (on which the rear driving teeth 131 are formed, and which is regarded as the second transmission component of the present application by the Examiner). Besides, Yang A is silent on whether the driving arms 110a, 110b, 110c and 110d are configured to be resiliently deformed and recover to allow a pivotal movement of the driving wheel 130 in one direction only.”
This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The limitation “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 or released to resiliently recover” is posed in the alternative, both limitations “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 “released to resiliently recover” are not required of the claim. Examiner interprets as the arms 110a-b of Yang A are engaged in the first deforming direction, as in Fig. 7, with the first transmission component 130, the arms 110c-d are released from engagement with wheel teeth 131 and recovering in a second direction. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights