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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's 3-2-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-20 were amended. Claims 5-6 and 11-12 were cancelled. New Claims 21-24 were presented. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-24 are pending and examined in this case.
Applicant’s drawing amendments have obviated the prior drawing objections.
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 centering assembly in Claim 16; a guidance assembly to permit the blade to cut the item in Claim 19.
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
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 1-4, 7-10, 13-24 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.
In re Claim 1, “a plurality of pins configured to couple the movable centering plates to at least two inner plates and an outer plate within the lower assembly,” is indefinite. As best understood, more than a plurality of pins is required to couple the movable centering plates to at least two inner plates and an outer plate within the lower assembly. As best understood, at least two pins would be required to attach the centering plates to one inner plate and another two pins would be required to attach the centering plates to the second inner plate and the outer plate. As best understood, at least four pins would be required. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “wherein: each of the plurality of pins resides within corresponding channels of the at least two inner plates and the outer plate,” is indefinite. Each pin cannot reside in the same channel. For example, the pins on one side of the assembly cannot reside int the channels of the structure on the other side. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “the plurality of pins is configured to move along horizontal channels of the outer plate,” is indefinite. The claim requires all pins to move along the channels of the outer plate. However, the single outer plate is only on one side of the assembly. The pins on the “other” side of the assembly to do not move in the channels of the outer plate. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, “a plurality of pins configured to couple the movable centering plates to at least two inner plates and an outer plate within the lower assembly, is indefinite. As best understood, more than a plurality of pins is required to couple the movable centering plates to at least two inner plates and an outer plate within the lower assembly. As best understood, at least two pins would be required to attach the centering plates to one inner plate and another two pins would be required to attach the centering plates to the second inner plate and the outer plate. As best understood, at least four pins would be required. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, “each of the plurality of pins resides within corresponding channels of the at least two inner plates and the outer plate that facilitates movement of the movable centering plates when the one or more actuators is depressed or released,” and “a movement of the plurality of pins along horizontal channels of the outer plate,” is indefinite. The claim requires all pins to move along the channels of the outer plate. However, the single outer plate is only on one side of the assembly. The pins on the “other” side of the assembly to do not move in the channels of the outer plate. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 16, “a plurality of connectors configured to couple the centering assembly to an inner plate and an outer plate within the lower assembly,” is indefinite. As best understood, more than a plurality of connectors is required to couple the movable centering plates to at least two inner plates and an outer plate within the lower assembly. As best understood, at least two connectors would be required to attach the centering plates to one inner plate and another two connectors would be required to attach the centering plates to the second inner plate and the outer plate. As best understood, at least four connectors would be required. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 16, “each of the plurality of connectors resides within corresponding receivers of the inner plate and the outer plate, ” and “the plurality of connectors is configured to move along the receivers of the inner plate,the outer plate is configured to move along the inner plate,” and “the plurality of connectors is configured to move along the receivers of the outer plate in a second direction different than the first direction,” is indefinite. The claim requires all connectors to move along the receives of the outer plate. However, the single outer plate is only on one side of the assembly. The connectors on the “other” side of the assembly to do not move in the receivers of the outer plate. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
It is to be noted that claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-24 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724