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
The amendment filed on 02/03/2026 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 10 and 12-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 10 and 12-18 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 10 recites “drive means for movably driving the plate during an opening or a closing of the obturation means, the drive means configured to drive the plate in the direction of the lid during passage of the obturation means from their closed position to their open position”, “elastic return means for elastically returning the plate toward the support surface” and “the drive means and the elastic return means configured to drive together the plate toward the support face during passage of the obturation means from their open position to their closed position” this is unclear. The elastic return means help move the plate down, and the drive means move it upward towards the lid, but then they both move the plate toward the bottom/support face? How does the functionality of the drive means change? From pushing upward to pushing downward? Are the components just mounted and the user lifts or presses them down? Does the plate move in relationship to the drive means and elastic means? Or the coupling mechanism is rotated from the closed to open position such that all the component are moved together?
Claim 10 recites “the coupling mechanism comprises compression means for compressing the elastic link between its two ends”, this is unclear. The coupling mechanism is previously recited as the drive means and elastic return means. The compression means is described in the specification and shown in the figures as 7. This is not apart of either the drive means 5 or elastic return means 6, but as part of the base. Does this limitation refer to a different compression means that are apart of the coupling mechanism? Is the compression means configured to interact with the coupling mechanism? Is this an embodiment that is not shown in the figures?
Claim 10 recites “the lid, rear panel, and the plate define three sides of a deformable parallelogram, and a fourth side…is defined by a linkage comprising the at least one deployable member together with the elastic return means, the elastic return means coupling the plate to the at least one deployable member and to the rear panel”, this is unclear. Is the applicant just claiming the same coupling mechanism again? Is this linkage a different set of the coupling mechanism? How can the fourth side of the parallelogram also be connected to the rear panel? Is more than one side defined by a linkage with the deployable member and elastic return means? How many linkages are there? The relationship between these structures is unclear.
Claim 13 recites “wherein at least one elastic link, called front elastic link, is mounted on the at least one deployable member, wherein the means for compressing said front elastic link are provided by the case”, this is unclear. Why does the elastic link have two names? Is the means for compressing the same as the previously recited compressing means in claim 10? Which are apart of the coupling mechanism? Is this an additional means for compressing? It is previously recited that the elastic link is attached to the attachment point and the plate? Does this mean the attachment point is part of the deployable member? Is this a further point of contact for the elastic link?
Claim 14 recites “two side panels, each side panel comprising a guide rail configured to guide at least one deployable member”, this is unclear. Does this mean the package now as two deployable members? So that each side panel as one?
Claim 14 recites “wherein the or at least one deployable member has at least one slider”, this is unclear. This appears to be a typographical error. It is unclear if the claim should be “wherein the at least one deployable member” or if each of the side panels has a deployable member and should instead recite “wherein each of the deployable members has at least one slider”.
Claim14 recites “the means for compressing said front elastic link mounted on the deployable member being adjacent to the end portion of each guide rail”, this is unclear. It is unclear how many deployable members are required so as to be for “each guide rail”. What means for compressing is this referring to as claim 13 recites “mean for compressing are provided by the case” and not mounted on the deployable member. How many types of compressing means/means for compressing are there?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the slider" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the arm having an insertion path extending from its first end to its second end, the front elastic link being configured to slide along the insertion path and to elongate under tension”, this is unclear. Does it slide along the insertion path just when the elastic link is being installed? Does this just mean that the elastic link is not connected/fixed to the arm?
Claim 16 recites “wherein the means for compressing the front elastic link mounted on the deployable member comprise two elastically deformable jaws”, this is unclear. Does the deployable member comprise the two jaws or the means for compressing? Is this different that the means for compressing provided by the case?
Claim 17 recites “wherein an elastic link, called rear elastic link”, this is unclear. Why is there two names for the same part?
Claim 17 recites “rear elastic link extends between two ends each coupled to a rear edge of the plate”, this is unclear. Claim 11 recites “at least one elastic link extending from one end coupled to the plate to another end coupled to an attachment point in the package”, so how can it now have both ends attached to the rear of the plate? Does the applicant mean wherein the package further comprises a rear elastic link? And this is not the elastic link as recited in claim 11? Is this an additional deployable member?
Claim 17 recites “each guide forming part of the compression means”, this is unclear. The compression means are previously directed to a different elastic link (coupled to the plate and attachment point as discussed above), are these the same compression means or are there additional compression means for the rear elastic link?
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies. Due to the lack of clarity the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claims are currently presented. Further, it appears that the claims may be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with idiomatic errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments are directed towards where support for amendments are found throughout the specification.
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 Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights