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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that claims 20, 22, 23, 28, were considered withdrawn by the election of 2/5/2026 and the nonfinal rejection of 3/19/2026. Claims 20, 23, 28, do not have proper status identifiers showing “withdrawn”, as required in MPEP 714c. Examiner assumes claims 20, 22, 23, 28, are withdrawn, as previously discussed.
Claims 31-32 depends from withdrawn claim 23, and therefore are also considered withdrawn.
New claims 33 and 34 include subject matter not originally elected, see election/restriction section below.
Current withdrawn claims are: 20, 22, 23, 28, 31-34.
Examiner thanks applicant for claim amendments that reduce 112f terminology. Examiner notes that some of applicants amendments have created more indefiniteness issues.
Regarding ‘176 Zetti, applicant asserts Zetti discloses “only three levers”. Examiner notes that ‘176 Zetti discloses the use of levers 4 and 5, and arms 27 and 28. Therefore, Zetti uses the four levers as required, which make the two articulated quadrilaterals as claimed. This argument is not persuasive.
Examiner thanks applicant for clear structural limitations not shown in the prior art, and not obvious in the prior art. Please see reasons for allowance below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 33 and 34 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 33 requires that the adjustment assembly 30 adjusts the second elastic spring 18, which is not shown in elected figures 1-2. The adjustment assembly 30 of elected embodiment of figures 1-2 only adjusts the compression of the first spring 17. Therefore, claim 33 is withdrawn.
Claim 34 requires the use of a “traveling slider”, which is not disclosed in the specification or the drawings of the elected embodiment of figures 1-2. Therefore, claim 34 is withdrawn.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 33 and 34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Current withdrawn claims are: 20, 22, 23, 28, 31-34.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 23, 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims have improper status identifiers, required by MPEP 714c. These claims were considered withdrawn in in the election of 2/5/2026 and in the non-final rejection of 3/19/2026. These claims are considered withdrawn for purposes of this action as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In claims 24-26:
“adjustable stroke stop” has replaced “means for setting a breadth”. Examiner notes that “adjustable stroke stop” is not utilized in the specification, which is therefore considered new matter. Please see 112b rejections below. The “adjustable stroke stop” is further limited by “adjustment screw” in claim 25, and is finally identified as “second threaded element” in claim 26, which is broader than “adjustment screw” of claim 25. Please see 112b rejections below.
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 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 24-27 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.
Regarding claim 24, applicant replaces the defined term “means for setting a breadth” with the new matter term “adjustable stroke stop”. Examiner notes that the term “adjustable stroke stop” is not found in the specification.
Similarly, applicant now claims “adjustment screw” in claim 25, which is not disclosed in the specification. Examiner assumes that the term “adjustment screw” is identical in scope to the “second threaded element” of claim 26, and refers to the screw 47 in figure 2.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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 16-19, 21, 24-27, 29-30 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 16, applicant claims “threaded adjustment mechanism” which is later defined as “comprising a movable element… and at least one adjustment screw”. Claim 18 further defines “adjustment screw” as “first threaded element”, which is broader than the term “screw” of claim 16. Examiner is not sure if applicant intends a broader term in claim 16 than in claim 18, or if claim 18 does not further limit the structure of claim 16.
Regarding claims 18-19, applicant claims the “adjustment screw comprises a first threaded element”. Examiner notes that “first threaded element” is broader than “adjustment screw”, and therefore, is not sure how these further limits the structure of claim 16. Examiner assumes that “adjustment screw comprises a threaded stem”. Examiner assumes that rejecting claim 19 also rejects claim 18.
Regarding claims 24-27, applicant replaces the term “means for setting a breadth” with “an adjustable stroke stop”, a term which is not in the specification. If applicant intends to claim “stroke limiting element” as later claimed in claim 25, applicant does not do so; applicant has opted to utilize a new matter term. Examiner assumes these two terms “means for setting a breadth” and “an adjustable stroke stop” are identical in scope. Further, applicant claims “an adjustment screw” in claim 25 but also a ”second threaded element” in claim 26, which examiner assumes both are referring to screw 47 in elected figure 2.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19, 21, 24-27, 29-30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In connection with all other claim language, Examiner notes that Zetti has a spring 8 adjusted by a “threaded adjustment mechanism” having (1) a movable element 11 supporting an abutment element 9, and (2) an adjustment screw 14 moving the movable element 11, the adjustment screw adapted to modify the preloading of the first elastic compression spring 8. Zetti does not disclose that the spring 8 is “interposed between said coupling bracket and” the abutment element 9 of the movable element, nor does Zetti disclose that the “movable element…connected with said third lever”.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to request interviews after non-final rejection, rather than after final rejection. Examiner notes that interviews after final rejection “may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration” MPEP 713.09.
Applicant must cancel withdrawn claims before allowance, and should utilize terms that are defined in the specification. Please call examiner prior to filing an after final amendment so that the next action can result in allowance.
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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
