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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12 all appear to reference the embodiment of Figure 1C by reciting: “wherein the first prong and the second prong are each threadedly attached to the connector” in claim 10; the “two nuts” as recited in claim 11; and “wherein one of the first prong or the second prong is standard threaded…” in claim 12. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to include the features of the embodiment as seen in Figure 2A. Therefore, there appears to be a lack of written description as to how the features of claim 1 which are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 2A could include the features of the embodiment of Figure 1C as recited in claims 10-12?
Claims 15 and 16 all appear to reference the embodiment of Figure 3B by reciting: “wherein at least a portion of the first prong and the second prong exhibit a corresponding non-circular cross-sectional shape…” in claim 15; and “a friction enhancing element…” in claim 16. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to include the features of the embodiment as seen in Figure 2A. Therefore, there appears to be a lack of written description as to how the features of claim 1 which are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 2A could include the features of the embodiment of Figure 3B as recited in claims 15 and 16?
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.
Claim 3, 10-12, 15 and 16 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 3 recites “includes section and a gripping section…” However, use of the term “section” makes it indefinite and unclear throughout the claims as to which “section” is being referenced. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending claim 3 similar to “wherein the handle includes a first section and a gripping section extending from the section, the first section positioned closer to the connector than the gripping section, the gripping section extending at a non-parallel angle relative to the first section.”
Claims 10-12 all appear to reference the embodiment of Figure 1C by reciting: “wherein the first prong and the second prong are each threadedly attached to the connector” in claim 10; the “two nuts” as recited in claim 11; and “wherein one of the first prong or the second prong is standard threaded…” as recited in claim 12. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to include the features of the embodiment as seen in Figure 2A. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the features of claim 1 which are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 2A could include the features of the embodiment of Figure 1C as recited in claims 10-12?
Claims 15 and 16 all appear to reference the embodiment of Figure 3B by reciting: “wherein at least a portion of the first prong and the second prong exhibit a corresponding non-circular cross-sectional shape…” in claim 15; and “a friction enhancing element…” in claim 16. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to include the features of the embodiment as seen in Figure 2A. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the features of claim 1 which are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 2A could include the features of the embodiment of Figure 3B as recited in claims 15 and 16?
Claim 19, Line 3 recites “a press button locker…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the “a push button locker” as recited in claim 19 is meant to be the same or a different element from the “a push button locker” as previously recited in claim 1? To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends replacing “a press button locker…” in claim 19 with “the press button locker…”
Claim 19, Line 4 recites “a first, extended state to a second, retracted state…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the “a first, extended state to a second, retracted state…” as recited in claim 19 is meant to be the same or a different element from the “a first, extended state to a second, retracted state…” as previously recited in claim 1? To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends replacing “a first, extended state to a second, retracted state…” in claim 19 with “the first, extended state to the second, retracted state…”
Claim 19, Line 7 recites “a hole…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the “a hole…” as recited in claim 19 is meant to be the same or a different element from the “a plurality of holes…” as previously recited in claim 1? To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends replacing “a hole…” in claim 19 with “one of the plurality of holes…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are allowed.
Claims 3 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3, 10-12, 15, 16, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights