DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/357,564, filed on 24 July, 2023, were presented for examination. In the response filed 18 September, 2025, in response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I including claims 1-17 without traverse. In the response filed 18 February, 2026, claims 2, 5, 15, and 18-20 were canceled and new claim 21 was added. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 21 are currently pending in the application.
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 18 February, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kano, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant at the top of page 8 of the arguments/remarks lists the relevant clauses of claim 1, as amended to incorporate the limitations of now-canceled 2 and 5 and to incorporate a new clause previously absent from the claims of record wherein the guide surface engages a surface of the base structure and the layer extends into an interior of the base structure. It is noted that since claim 1 now incorporates the limitations of previous claims 2 and 5, claim 5 only rejected under Kano and not having been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kawaguchi and/or Cerniglia as claims 1-2 were, the rejections based on Kawaguchi and Cerniglia are moot – this seems to be the reason Applicant did not address them in the response.
The second half of page 8, and the top of page 9, provide a paraphrased (not the actual text of the written description of the specification as originally filed) summary of the relevant features of the invention vis-à-vis the amendments to claim 1. This includes (page 9, lines 3-4) the statement “the layer 222 extends into the base structure 222…” (the Examiner believes this was a typo and the base structure was meant to be reference numeral 112, not 222).
Page 10 of the arguments/remarks lays forth Applicant’s characterization of Kano, which the Examiner will not contest. The one full paragraph of page 11 asserts Kano does not teach the various limitations, listed (and from claim 1), up to and including the limitation “the layer extends into an interior of the base structure”. The Examiner believes that Kano neither teaches nor reasonably suggests wherein its layer could extend into an interior of the base structure.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
With respect to formal matters, Applicant asserts that the amendments to the claims overcome the claim objection and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) posed in the prior Office Action. The Examiner concurs, said objection/rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 3-4, and 6-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, lines 15-16 recite the limitation “the layer extends into an interior of the base structure”. This passage is not found in the written description of the application as originally filed. In the arguments/remarks filed with the amended claims in the response, Applicant (at the top of page 7) provides a support statement: “As seen in FIG. 2 of the current application, the guide surface 224 engages a portion of the base structure 102 and the layer 222 extends into the base structure 122 [Examiner note, the base structure is actually 112] to align the strip seal component 106 with the base structure…” Applicant does not provide a paragraph number wherein this feature is either explicitly recited or provided with robust explanation and/or context within the application as originally filed. The Examiner, in trying to establish what is actually supported by the application as originally filed, has come to the determination that there is no particular passage in the specification that directly supports the quoted citation above, which contains the important claim limitation.
It is somewhat clear that Applicant is relying on the Examiner’s understanding, and/or that of a person of ordinary skill in the art who has read the application, to understand that fig. 2 (as well as fig. 8) establishes that there is an interior of the base structure and that the layer is within it. The Examiner has no reason to refute this. ¶ 0026 of the written description of the present application recites: “the top 208 is spaced from the base 112 to define an interior of the base structure and the carriage mechanism 104 is shaped to extend across and around the top 208 and extend into the interior of the base structure 102. The carriage mechanism 104 can include any suitable components and in the illustrated embodiments includes an upper carriage 210 that rides on the top 208, an undercarriage 212 that extends into the interior of the base structure 102… the carriage mechanism 104 both surrounds the top 208 and extends into the interior of the base structure 102…. The strip seal component 106 must be able to engage the top 208 and the base 112 to seal the interior of the base structure 102…” However, no discussion of the interior is connected with mention of the layer, and no discussion of the layer is connected with mention of the interior.
The broadest reasonable interpretation the Examiner derives from this is that there is a volume constrained vertically between base bottom elements 202/204 and base top 208 and constrained laterally (left-to-right in fig. 2) either; a) between the inner side walls of the carriage mechanism, b) between the strip seals 218 and 220, or c) between virtual vertical planes defined by the lateral edges of the base 112. In options (a) and (c) above, the strip seals are themselves already within the interior of the base structure, such that the “extension” of the layer “into an interior of the base structure” (i.e. from somewhere outside to the interior) is logically not a possibility.
The Examiner is not stating or suggesting that the application as-filed does not support the layer having a relationship with the interior of the base structure that defines over the prior art of record. The claim relies on Applicant remarks (page 9, lines 3-4) for support, but the remarks provide a definiteness, even if it is just stating the claim language itself, that is not directly supported by the specification itself. The written description, even in conjunction with fig. 2, does not provide enough clarification such that one of ordinary skill in the art could mentally establish the boundaries of the interior of the base structure such that the layer could “extend” thereinto.
The logic (cited above) of the remarks is unfortunately cyclical or self-referential – referring to pages 9-10, first fig. 2 is shown to have a layer and an interior, then the accompanying text indicates that the layer extends into the interior, and the conclusion is, apparently, that the interior begins/ends where the layer meets the strip seal. Although this is something anyone can generally understand in light of the remarks, it is not something supported by the specification when it was originally filed, the requirement here {according to 35 U.S.C. 112(a)} being that the basis needs to be established in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention – specifically, said person of skill in the art, when reading the specification as originally filed, would be unable to pinpoint the boundaries of the “interior” of the base structure and then contextualize another element “extending into” it (ostensibly from somewhere outside it), and consequently would be led to the fact that the boundaries were only really, definitively, established by the newly-added claim language and accompanying remarks.
Claims 3-4, and 6-11 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
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, 3-4, and 6-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, lines 15-16 recite the limitation “the layer extends into an interior of the base structure”. As described above in the rejection of the same limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the broadest reasonable interpretation the Examiner derives from this is that there is a volume constrained vertically between base bottom elements 202/204 and base top 208 and constrained laterally (left-to-right in fig. 2) either; a) between the inner side walls of the carriage mechanism, b) between the strip seals 218 and 220, or c) between virtual vertical planes defined by the lateral edges of the base 112. In options (a) and (c) above, the strip seals are themselves already within the interior of the base structure, such that the “extension” of the layer “into an interior of the base structure” (i.e. from somewhere outside to the interior) is logically not a possibility.
A person of skill in the art, when reading the specification as originally filed, would be unable to pinpoint the boundaries of the “interior” of the base structure such that he/she could contextualize another element (i.e. the layer) “extending into” it (ostensibly from somewhere outside it). Specifically, the indefiniteness becomes starker when imagining the meaningful scenario of comparing the claim to an actual device (i.e. to determine infringement) – the actual boundary of the “interior” is essential, for if it is determined to be only the area between the layers, the layers are outside it and can’t extend into it. If it (the interior) is determined to be the entire internal area defined by the upper and lower carriages, the layer is completely inside in it already and therefore cannot extend into it. There is no reason to list the other ways of interpreting what the “interior” is that conforms with ¶ 0026, cited more fully above. The Examiner has provided two which show that multiple interpretations of the “interior” are available from the specification as originally filed and which do not support the claim language.
As noted above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the comment in the arguments/remarks that ostensibly defines the newly-added claim language was not part of the specification as originally filed, and appears to attempt, ex post, to establish the lateral boundary of the interior (by saying the layer extends into the base structure) for the particular purpose of its coinciding with a plane the layer crosses while accomplishing the “extending”. For patentability purposes, the claim’s boundaries must instead be established by the specification as originally filed.
Claims 3-4, and 6-11 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 16-17, and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 12, and all claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a movable manufacturing component comprising:
a base structure;
a carriage mechanism movable relative to the base structure; and
a strip seal component arranged between the base structure and the carriage mechanism such that the carriage mechanism moves along the strip seal component as the carriage mechanism moves relative to the base structure,
wherein the strip seal component has a first layer on a first side of a strip seal member, wherein the strip seal component has a second layer on a second side of the strip member, wherein the second side is opposite the first side, wherein the first layer has a lower friction coefficient compared to a friction coefficient of the strip seal member, wherein the second layer has a lower friction coefficient compared to the friction coefficient of the strip seal member;
wherein the strip seal component is configured to flex as the carriage mechanism moves relative to the base structure, wherein the carriage mechanism includes structure that flexes the strip seal component away from the base structure.
As discussed in the prior Office Action, Cerniglia teaches the component of pre-amendment claim 12, upon which claim 15 depended – claim 15 has been incorporated into claim 12 such that the reasons for indicating allowability for claim 15 now apply to claim 12. Cerniglia does not further teach a structure that flexes the strip seal. The various references in PTO Form 892 that do have structures that flex the strip seal like the instant application do not have the requisite limitations of pre-amendment claim 12. These references are not analogous art to Cerniglia, which does teach the limitations of pre-amendment claim 12. Cerniglia cannot be reasonably combined with any of said references.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, inter alia, a movable manufacturing component comprising:
a base structure;
a carriage mechanism movable relative to the base structure; and
a strip seal component arranged between the base structure and the carriage mechanism such that the carriage mechanism moves along the strip seal component as the carriage mechanism moves relative to the base structure,
wherein the strip seal component has at least one guide surface formed on a side of a strip seal member that restricts lateral movement of the strip seal component as the carriage mechanism moves longitudinally along the base;
wherein the strip seal component has a layer on a side of a strip seal member that forms the at least one guide surface;
wherein the layer is shaped to leave a portion of the side of the strip seal member uncovered, wherein the at least one guide surface is an edge of the layer at the uncovered portion of the side of the strip seal member;
wherein the uncovered portion includes a first strip extending along a first portion of the side of the strip seal member and a second strip extending along a second portion of the side of the strip seal member.
Kano was applied to pre-amendment claim 5, upon which pre-amendment claim 6 depended, said pre-amendment claim 6 and all intervening claims having been combined with pre-amendment claim 1 to create new claim 21, such that the discussion apropos the allowability of claim 6 in the prior Office Action now applies to new claim 21. Kano’s uncovered portion (see annotated excerpt of fig. 3 below) definitely includes one strip extending along a first portion of the side, but the second strip extending along a second portion of the side of the strip seal member, in the Examiner’s interpretation of the reference, which is designated by the curved leader line, is not part of the portion of the side of the strip seal, as is required by claim 5. It is part of the end of the strip seal.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 (and consequently the claims depending from it) cannot be examined on the merits due to the indefiniteness, and lack of support in the originally-filed specification, discussed in the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. The newly-inserted last clause of claim 1 does not appear to be found in or suggested by the art of record, at least in the context of the other clauses of claim 1. However, as the Examiner cannot predict how the Applicant is going to remedy the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, he is unwilling to confer a statement of allowability because any sufficient said remedy will require further consideration, as well as potentially further searching, and examination on the merits is closed even though this matter is outstanding.
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 DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834