DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14 (line 1) “of claim 13” should be deleted.
In claim 18 (line 9) “relativle” should recite –relative--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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 1-12 and 14-20 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 (lines 7-12) recites “the rotational locking member axially movable between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame”.
Claim 1 fails to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define the rotational locking member in order to “prevent relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame” in a “first axial position”, and to “allow relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame” in a “second axial position”; it is unclear as to how such structural features structurally engage the frame in order to prevent or allow rotation therebetween. Claims 7-12 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 2 (lines 7-11) recites “the rotational locking member axially movable between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame”.
Claim 2 fails to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define the rotational locking member in order to “prevent relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame” in a “first axial position”, and to “allow relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame” in a “second axial position”; it is unclear as to how such structural features structurally engage each of the housing portion and the frame in order to prevent or allow rotation therebetween. Moreover, it is unclear as to how such features provide for axial movement between the first and second positions. Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 14 (lines 7-11) recites “the rotational locking member slidable axially along the cooperative housing portion between a first position wherein the rotational locking member inhibits relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel and a second position wherein relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame is uninhibited by the rotational locking member”.
Claim 14 fails to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define the rotational locking member in order to “inhibit relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel” in a first axial position, and to allow “uninhibited relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame” in a second axial position; it is unclear as to how such structural features structurally engage the housing portion in order to prevent or allow rotation therebetween. Moreover, it is unclear as to how such features provide for axial movement between the first and second positions. Claims 15-17 depend from claim 14 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 18 (lines 7-11) recites “axially sliding a rotational locking member movably disposed on the at least one cooperative housing portion between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation”.
Claim 18 fails to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine what structural features define the rotational locking member in order to “prevent relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the frame” in a “first axial position”, and to “allow relative rotation” in a “second axial position”; it is unclear as to how such structural features structurally engage the frame in order to prevent or allow rotation therebetween. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elekta (EP 2 186 489).
As to claim 2 as best understood, Elekta discloses a removable coupling device for coupling panels of a modular panel system, the device comprising:
at least one cooperative housing portion 14a,14b defining a housing recess receiving an associated frame of an associated panel; and
a rotational locking member 23 movably disposed on the at least one cooperative housing portion to selectively lock an angular position between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame, the rotational locking member axially movable between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame (locking member 23 axially translates within threaded hole 21 in housing portion 20 as it is threadably tightened or loosened within the threaded hole between a first tightened axial position and a second loosened axial position; Figures 1-3); and
a housing cover 18,22 hingedly secured to the at least one cooperative housing portion, the housing cover pivotable between a closed position wherein the housing cover prevents removal of the associated frame from the at least one cooperative housing portion and an open position wherein the associated frame is removable from the at least one cooperative housing portion (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 3, Elekta discloses a removable coupling device wherein the at least one cooperative housing portion 14a,14b includes:
a main body member partially defining the housing recess and having the housing cover 18,22 pivotally connected thereto; and
an auxiliary body member fixedly 12 secured to the main body member and further defining the housing recess (Figures 1-4).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christiansen et al. (US 2003/0172493).
As to claim 14 as best understood, Christiansen et al. disclose a removable coupling device for coupling frames of panels, comprising:
a cooperative housing portion 7,8 defining a housing recess in which a frame of a panel is removably received; and
a rotational locking member 16,17,21 slidably arranged on the cooperative housing portion for selectively locking a relative angular position between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel, the rotational locking member slidable axially along the cooperative housing portion between a first position wherein the rotational locking member inhibits relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel and a second position wherein relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame is uninhibited by the rotational locking member,
wherein the rotational locking member includes at least one engagement surface 21 that matingly engages at least one keyed surface 16,17 disposed on the frame of the panel when the rotational locking member is in the first position wherein engagement by the at least one engagement surface with the at least one keyed surface prevents relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 15, Christiansen et al. disclose a removable coupling device wherein the at least one engagement surface 16,17 includes first and second engagement surfaces 21 and the at least one keyed surface includes at least diametrically opposed keyed surfaces 16,17, and wherein the first and second engagement surfaces abuttingly engage the diametrically opposed keyed surfaces when the rotational locking member is in the first position (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 16, Christiansen et al. disclose a removable coupling device wherein the at least one engagement surface 21 is axially offset from the at least one keyed surface 16,17 when the rotational locking member is in the second position (Figures 1-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
As to claims 1 and 6 as best understood, Elekta discloses the claimed removable coupling device with the exception of wherein the rotational locking member includes an actuator tab for manually manipulating the rotational locking member between the first axial position and the second axial position, the actuator tab extending through a tab aperture defined in the at least one cooperative housing portion.
As to claim 18 as best understood, Elekta discloses the claimed method with the exception of the sliding being performed via an actuator tab extending through a tab aperture defined in the cooperative housing portion.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling device disclosed by Elekta to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 2, Attorney argues that:
Elekta fails to disclose a removable coupling device wherein the rotational locking member is axially movable between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame.
Examiner disagrees. As to claim 2 as best understood, Elekta discloses a removable coupling device wherein the rotational locking member 23 is axially movable between a first axial position wherein the rotational locking member prevents relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion 14a,14b and the associated frame and a second axial position wherein the rotational locking member allows relative rotation between the at least one cooperative housing portion and the associated frame (locking member 23 axially translates within threaded hole 21 in housing portion 20 as it is threadably tightened or loosened within the threaded hole between a first tightened axial position and a second loosened axial position; Figures 1-3).
As to claim 14, Attorney argues that:
Christiansen et al. fail to disclose a removable coupling device wherein the rotational locking member includes at least one engagement surface that matingly engages at least one keyed surface disposed on the frame of the panel when the rotational locking member is in the first position wherein engagement by the at least one engagement surface with the at least one keyed surface prevents relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion and the frame of the panel.
Examiner disagrees. As to claim 14 as best understood, Christiansen et al. disclose a removable coupling device wherein the rotational locking member 16,17,21 includes at least one engagement surface 21 that matingly engages at least one keyed surface 16,17 disposed on the frame of the panel when the rotational locking member is in the first position wherein engagement by the at least one engagement surface with the at least one keyed surface prevents relative rotation between the cooperative housing portion 7,8 and the frame of the panel (Figures 1-8).
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 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 at (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.
02/19/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619