DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 September 2025 has been entered.
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejections to claims 16-18 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues the amendment to claims 1 and 20 overcome the rejection under Henderson’008 in view of Lee’412 – previously used to reject dependent claim 16 – because Lee’412 does not disclose the wedges move independently of each other. This argument is persuasive. However, this feature is not disclosed in the application as filed. Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 112a-new matter because this independent movement is not disclosed in the application, as filed. See the 112a rejection below.
Applicant argues that Lee’412 discloses a third wedge. The claims use the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” which does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03.
Applicant argues that “Lee focuses on mechanical separation via multiple wedges, whereas the claims as amended disclose direct application of the wedge assembly for tension control”. MPEP 2114 states “"Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." In this case, moving the arms apart via mechanical separation or “direct application of the wedge assembly” will result in tension control. Something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property. See MPEP 2112.
Applicant argues the amendment to claims 1 and 20 overcome the rejection under Henderson’008 in view of Sutton’431 – previously used to reject dependent claim 16 – because Sutton’431 does not disclose the wedges move independently of each other. This argument is persuasive. However, as discussed above, these claims are rejected under 112a new matter.
Applicant makes the same arguments with respect to Sutton that were made with respect to Lee. The response is the same as with Lee. See above.
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 1-16 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 were amended to recite the spreading mechanism includes two wedges “wherein each wedge is arranged to translate independently between the first and second arms” and “wherein the actuator is configured to independently move each of the first and second wedges”.
These limitations are not supported by the specification, as filed. In particular, the specification discloses a handle 1818 – the claimed actuator – is turned to move the second wedge 1816 relative to the first wedge 1815 to control a distance between the arms 1808a, 1808b. Nothing in the disclosure indicates the first wedge moves independently from the second wedge. Instead, the first wedge moves in response to movement of the second wedge. Paragraph [0122] states: “As handle 1818 is turned, the second wedge 1816 can move relative to the first wedge 1815 to control the distance between the distal ends of the first arm 1808a and the second arm 1808b.”
Further, the specification does not disclose the actuator independently moves the first wedge. As discussed above, the actuator is only disclosed as moving the second wedge, which, as a result, moves the first wedge and the arms. There is no disclosure of an actuator which moves the first wedge independently of the second wedge. The first wedge only moves in response to movement of the second wedge. The second wedge moves in response to the threaded handle 1818. There is no disclosure of the threaded handle 1818 independently moving the first wedge. There is no disclosure of a second or different actuator in this embodiment. Therefore, there is no actuator which independently moves the first wedge.
Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based on its dependency from a rejected claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY BACHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm and alternating Fridays.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 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 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.
Lindsey Bachman
/L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 9 December 2025
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771