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 .
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 1-6 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 6 are the independent claims pending in the application. Both claims have been amended to include: three or more elastic bodies attached to either one side of the machine column and the voice operation device and disposed in contact with another side; and a magnet body attached to the other side and disposed in non-contact with the one side to suck and fix the one side, wherein: a first side of the voice operation device and a second side of the machine column face each other, the three or more elastic bodies are attached to one of the first side and the second side, and are disposed in contact with another one of the first side and the second side. and the magnet body is attached to the another one of the first side and the second side and disposed in non-contact with the one of the first side and the second side to suck and fix the one of the first side and the second side. The specification as filed does not disclose the invention as claimed. The claims require different parts of a device to be attached to specific sides of specific parts of the device. However, the claims, as amended, do not make clear which sides or what parts the different components are attached to. The biggest issue is that the amended claims recite:” the three or more elastic bodies are attached to one of the first side and the second side, and are disposed in contact with another one of the first side and the second side”. It is not clear what the elastic bodies are attached to. The first side and the second side of what? The claim doesn’t say. The figures only show the elastic bodies attached to a first side of a housing 53C on a back surface 53B. The housing is disclosed to be that of a stand 53, which is not in claims 1 or 6. The elastic bodies are disclosed to be attached to a back surface 53B, so they are not attached to one of a first side and a second side, they are only attached to a first side of the back surface 53B. Also, the various sides claimed are in reference to the voice operation device and the machine column with the fixing mechanism. The various sides claimed are not clear where they are located or in relationship to and therefore, it is not clear the Applicant had possession of the invention as claimed at the time of the filing of the invention. Since claim 1 lacks an adequate written description, then claims 2-5, which depend on claim 1, lack an adequate description as well.
The term “substantially” in claim 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s not clear quite what the metes and bounds of substantially would actually be.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reasoning applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights