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 .
Priority
The foreign priority document CN 202011212999.8 (11/01/2020) does not appear to provide support for at least the “rolling balls” limitation (i.e., ball bearings) found within each of the respective independent claims. The earliest foreign priority date providing support for the respective independent claims appears to be CN 202120458579.1 (03/03/2021).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/1/2023 have been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
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 yielding structure” (see line 15) and “a position-limit structure” (see line 15) in claim 1;
“a self-tightening assembly” (see line 4) in claim 24;
“a position-limit structure” (see line 20) in claim 26;
“a cutting tool position-limit structure” (see line 4) in claim 30; and
“a self-tightening assembly” (see line 5) in claim 33.
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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 27, there is an apparent minor typographical error in line 3 at “sliably runs” (wherein a minor amendment such as “slidably runs” will moot this objection).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-35 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-25), the phrase "a front-rear direction" in line 7 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a front-rear direction was already introduced in line 6 of claim 1, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of line 6 or introduce a new, additional front-rear direction. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-25) recites the limitation "the circumferential side wall" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-25) recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-25) recites the limitation "the front portion" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 (and thereby dependent claims 2-25) recites the limitation "the outer circumferences" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the front side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 (and thereby dependent claim 5) recites the limitation "the inner circumferential wall" (of the sliding cylinder portion) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 (and thereby dependent claim 5) recites the limitation "the inner circumferential wall" (of the position-limit cylinder portion) in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the rear portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8 (and thereby dependent claims 9-22), the phrase "a front-rear direction" in line 7 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a clamping arm was already introduced in line 6 of claim 1, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of claim 1 or introduce a new, additional front-rear direction. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 (and thereby dependent claims 10-16) recites the limitation "the rear end face" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 (and thereby dependent claims 13-14) recites the limitations "the rear end face" (of the first conductive piece) in lines 5-6 and "the rear end face" (of the second conductive piece) in lines 6-7. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the circumferential outer side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 (and thereby dependent claims 19-22) recites the limitation "the rear portion" (of the pressing bar) in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 (and thereby dependent claims 19-22) recites the limitation "the inner side" (of the pressing and holding portion) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 (and thereby dependent claims 19-22) recites the limitation "the outer circumference" (of the transducer shell) in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 (and thereby dependent claims 19-22) recites the limitation "the transducer constraint structure" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitations "the inner surface" (of the pressing and holding portion) in lines 3-4 and line 6. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the outer sides" (of the operating windows) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the inner side" (of the handle housing) in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 (and thereby dependent claims 24-25) recites the limitation "the rear end" (of the inner tube body) in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 (and thereby dependent claims 24-25) recites the limitation "the outer circumference" (of the mounting boss) in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 (and thereby dependent claim 25) recites the limitations "the front portion" (of the horn shaft in line 2; and of the handle housing in line 4). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the outer circumference" (of the rotary knob inner sleeve) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the inner circumference" (of the outer ring) in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the out ring" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the outer periphery" (of the outer tube) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the rear portion" (of the outer tube) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the front to rear direction" (of the outer tube) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35), the phrase "a front-rear direction" in line 10 renders the claim(s) indefinite because a front-rear direction was already introduced in lines 3-4, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is unclear whether applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of lines 3-4 or introduce a new, additional front-rear direction. To move prosecution forward, the examiner assumed applicant intended to refer back to the front-rear direction of lines 3-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the circumferential side wall" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the front portion" (of the connector) in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the inner circumferential wall" (of the ball cap) in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the outer circumferential wall" (of the connector) in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the inner end" (of the inner tube body) in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 (and thereby dependent claims 27-35) recites the limitation "the outer circumference" (of the mounting boss) in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the inner circumferential wall" (of the position-limit cylinder portion) in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the rear portion" (of the connector) in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the rear portion" (of the cutting tool) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the rear portion" (of the tool bar) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the front portion" (of the horn shaft) in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the front portion" (of the handle housing) in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the rear end face" (of the electric plate) in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the lower portion" (of the ultrasonic scalpel) in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is acknowledged that the subject matter of claims 1-35 appears to be allowable. It is noted that claims 1-35 remain subject to claim objections and/or 112 rejections, as set forth above, which must be resolved before the claims can be in proper condition for allowance. The closest prior art appears to be Gao (CN 104783868A), with a copy of an attached English translation provided herein. Gao teaches a similar quick-release connector for a surgical instrument that includes rolling balls/ball bearings. However, the quick-release connection of Gao requires rotation to lock the instrument tool tip to the handle housing (see paragraph [0072] of the translation), wherein the present claims at least require the ball cap to be sleeved on the front portion of the connector so that movement of the ball cap forward or backward with respect to the connector positions a position-limit structure at the outer circumference of the through holes to lock the tool tip to the handle housing. Furthermore, the present invention requires the ball cap comprising both a yielding structure and a position-limit structure with the specific connection functionality as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Lynch whose telephone number is (571)270-. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:00AM-6:00PM, with alternate Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston, at (571) 272-7134. 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.
/ROBERT A LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771