DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 12/15/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13 are pending;
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, and 12 are currently amended; claims 4 and 8 were previously presented; claims 5, 9, and 11 have been cancelled; claim 13 is new;
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected herein.
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 .
Non-Compliant Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025 are considered non-compliant because they fail to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121, which states:
"The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of 'original,' 'withdrawn' or 'previously presented' will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of 'withdrawn' or 'previously presented.'" See 37 CFR 1.121(c)(3).
"No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of 'canceled' or 'not entered.'" See 37 CFR 1.121(c)(4)(i).
In particular, claim 8 is presented with the status identifier "Canceled" and also with text. Based on the amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025, it is not clear as to whether or not claim 8 is pending for examination. Since Applicant states on page 6 of the remarks filed 12/15/2025 that "Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-13 are pending and have been examined on the merits," for the purpose of compact prosecution, the amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025 have been entered, with claim 8 considered as a pending claim and with all pending claims, i.e., claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13, examined on the merits in the current Office action. It is advised that claim 8 be provided with a proper status identifier in the subsequent response(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the remarks filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the drawings, the specification, the claim informalities, and the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the objections and the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth below in the current Office action. Note that the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025.
The rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, set forth in the Office action mailed 09/15/2025, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025 and Applicant's arguments in the remarks filed 12/15/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/09/2023 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the reference character "21" in Figure 1 has been used to designate both the first articulated section and the second articulated section. Note that the second articulated section should be designated with the reference number "22" in Figure 1. See specification, page 9, lines 18-21.
The drawings filed 11/09/2023 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features "wherein the compressive covering includes a reinforcing covering around the flexible sections" (claim 8, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As best understood, the drawings filed 11/09/2023 do not show the compressive covering (30) comprising a reinforcing covering around the flexible sections (21, 22) as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amended abstract filed 12/15/2025 is objected to because it contains informalities and confusing language, e.g., those discussed with respect to claim 1 under Claim Objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the current Office action. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, it is advised that "that compresses" be changed to --compressing--.
Claim 1, line 10, "between" appears to be --of--.
Claim 1, line 13, "a third rigid section and a first flexible section" appears to be --a third rigid section, a first flexible section--.
Claim 1, line 21, "determining" appears to be --causing--. See specification, page 8, lines 24-28.
Claim 1, line 24, "second end, opposite the first end" appears to be --second end opposite the first end--, i.e., without the comma.
Claim 2, lines 2 and 3, "covering - around" appears to be --covering around--, i.e., without the hyphen.
Claim 3, line 3, "in an expansion housing that is hollow in the longitudinal direction contained in the third rigid section" appears to be --in an expansion housing, which is hollow in the longitudinal direction and provided within the third rigid section--.
Claim 6, line 4, "have a thickness" appears to be --each have a thickness--, which makes more sense. Note that claim 4 recites that the anchoring strip (23a) has a thickness equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
Claim 7, line 3, "the flat strips;" appears to be --the flat strips; or--.
Claim 8, line 2, "the flexible sections" appears to be --the first flexible section and the second flexible section--.
Claim 13, line 3, "have a thickness" appears to be --each have a thickness--, which makes more sense. Note that claim 4 recites that the anchoring strip (23a) has a thickness equal to or less than 0.6 mm.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13 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, the limitations "a plurality of flat strips elongated in a longitudinal direction, each one being flexible and inelastic in the longitudinal direction and having two flat sides parallel to the longitudinal direction, the flat strips being mutually overlapping and in close contact through the respective flat sides facing each other" are recited in lines 3-6. As best understood, the limitation "the respective flat sides" in line 6 appears to mean --the two flat sides of each of the flat strips--. However, as shown in Figure 5, the two flat sides (24) of each of the flat strips (23) face away from each other and do not face each other. It is not clear as to how "the respective flat sides [are] facing each other" as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "a compressive covering that compresses the flat strips in a radial direction, pressing the flat sides facing each other together, increasing friction between the flat sides facing each other" are recited in lines 7-9. Based on the limitations "a plurality of flat strips elongated in a longitudinal direction, each one being flexible and inelastic in the longitudinal direction and having two flat sides parallel to the longitudinal direction, the flat strips being mutually overlapping and in close contact through the respective flat sides facing each other" in lines 3-6, each of the flat strips (23) has two flat sides (24). As similarly discussed above on page 7 of the current Office action, as shown in Figure 5, the two flat sides (24) of each of the flat strips (23) face away from each other and do not face each other. The two flat sides (24) of each of the flat strips (23) do not appear to be pressed together or have any friction therebetween. It is not clear as to how each of the limitations "pressing the flat sides facing each other together" in line 8 and the limitations "friction between the flat sides facing each other" in line 9 make any sense. Which flat sides, i.e., the flat sides of which one(s) of the flat strips, do the limitations "the flat sides facing each other" in line 8 refer to? Which friction between which flat sides, i.e., the friction between the flat sides of which one(s) of the flat strips, do the limitations "friction between the flat sides facing each other" in line 9 refer to? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the flexible sections" (line 10) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the flat sides" in line 11 is indefinite. Based on the limitations "a plurality of flat strips elongated in a longitudinal direction, each one being flexible and inelastic in the longitudinal direction and having two flat sides parallel to the longitudinal direction, the flat strips being mutually overlapping and in close contact through the respective flat sides facing each other" in lines 3-6, each of the flat strips (23) has two flat sides (24). It is not clear as to whose flat sides, i.e., the flat sides of which one(s) of the flat strips, the limitation "the flat sides" in line 11 refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "An articulated supporting arm comprising: a plurality of flat strips…; a compressive covering…; the articulated supporting arm comprises a first rigid section, a second rigid section, a third rigid section and a first flexible section…, and a second flexible section" in lines 1-15 are indefinite. The instant arrangement of limitations makes it seem that the articulated supporting arm comprises seven distinct structural elements, i.e., (1) a plurality of flat strips; (2) a compressive covering; (3) a first rigid section; (4) a second rigid section; (5) a third rigid section; (6) a first flexible section, and (7) a second flexible section. However, as shown in Figure 1, each of the first rigid section (11), the second rigid section (12), the third rigid section (13), the first flexible section (21), and the second flexible section (22) comprises a portion of the flat strips (23) and/or a portion of the compressive covering (30). Also see claim 2, lines 1-5. As such, the arrangement of the limitations in lines 1-15 are not consistent with the actual relationships among the foregoing seven claimed structural elements of the articulated supporting arm. It is advised that claim 1 be amended to clarify the relationships among the first rigid section (11), the second rigid section (12), the third rigid section (13), the first flexible section (21), the second flexible section (22), the flat strips (23), and the compressive covering (30). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a first flexible section" in line 13 is indefinite. It is not clear as to how many flexible sections claim 1 requires. For example, does claim 1 require "a first flexible section" in line 13 in addition to "the flexible sections" in line 10? Or do "the flexible sections" in line 10 comprise "a first flexible section" in line 13? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a second flexible section" in lines 14 and 15 is indefinite. It is not clear as to how many flexible sections claim 1 requires. For example, does claim 1 require "a second flexible section" in lines 14 and 15 in addition to "the flexible sections" in line 10? Or do "the flexible sections" in line 10 comprise "a second flexible section" in lines 14 and 15? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "a bending of the first flexible section in a first direction is transmitted to the second flexible section through the slip in the longitudinal direction of the flat strips relative to each other" are recited in lines 19-21. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the slip" (line 20) in the claim. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the longitudinal direction of the flat strips" (line 20) in the claim. Note that the limitation "in a longitudinal direction" in line 3 appears to refer to an arbitrary longitudinal direction and does not appear to specify --a longitudinal direction of the flat strips-- or --the flat strips have a longitudinal direction--. Thirdly, it is not clear as to what structures the limitation "relative to each other" in lines 20 and 21 refers to. Note that the language "the flat strips" in line 20 appears to be part of the phrase "the longitudinal direction of the flat strips" in line 20. Does Applicant mean "the slip… relative to each other"? The slip of what structures is being recited here? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the compression" (lines 1 and 2) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations "a second end of the flat strips other than the anchoring strip, opposite the first end" in claim 3 (lines 1 and 2) are indefinite. Note that claim 1 recites that "each flat strip has a first end… and a second end, opposite the first end" in lines 23 and 24. It is not clear as to whether the "second end" in claim 3 and the "second end" in claim 1 refer to the same second end or different second ends. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations "the anchoring strip has equal number of flat strips above and below" in lines 1-3 are indefinite. As best understood, the anchoring strip (23a) consists of one flat strip and does not have an "equal number of flat strips above and below" as claimed. It is requested that Applicant clarify the instant limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations "wherein the flat strips other than the anchoring strip and other than conducting strips are made of a plastic material, polyester, polystyrene or polypropylene and/or have a thickness equal to or less than 1 mm" in lines 1-4 are indefinite. What does it mean by "the flat strips… other than conducting strips"? Do the limitations in lines 1-4 imply that the flat strips, other than the anchoring strip, comprise conducting strips? If so, it is advised that such subject matter be clearly recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631