Detailed Action1
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 8-9 and 14 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites orienting the position-limiting portion between the corpus portion and the second body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second body”. It also appears this limitation should recite: orienting the position-limiting portion between the second corpus portion and a second body.
Claim 9 recites between the operating member and the second corpus portion in the last two lines. This limitation is confusing because the operating member comprises the second corpus portion. Since the second corpus portion is a part of the operating member it is unclear how an element can be between the operating member and the second corpus portion. Is this limitation attempting to recite between the second corpus portion and the second dentate portion?
Claim 14 recites movably fitting the second corpus portion and the operating member together. This limitation is confusing because the operating member comprises the second corpus portion. Since the second corpus portion is a part of the operating member it is unclear what this step is attempting to recite. Is the step attempting to recite the second corpus portion being movably fitted to the second dentate portion?
Rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TWM476194 (“Wang”).
Claim 1 recites a method of using a dentate structure (¶ [0001] & [0020], wherein all references to the Wang specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the Office action mailed on November 13, 2025), the dentate structure comprising a corpus portion (1) and a first dentate portion (4), wherein the corpus portion has a head portion (see fig. 7, i.e. upper cylindrical portion of element 1 comprising surface 12) being coupled to or integrally formed with an axle portion (3) (figs. 7-9, wherein corpus portion 1 is coupled to axle portion via elements 2 & 4), the method comprising a step of rotatably coupling the first dentate portion to the corpus portion (figs. 7-9, ¶ [0021]-[0023]), and a fitting portion (13) of the corpus portion to be adapted to be fitted to a body (6) to allow the first dentate portion to rotate while the corpus portion is fixed (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0021]-[0023]), with the first dentate portion being restrained by the head portion and thus rotatably coupled to the axle portion (figs. 7-9, ¶ [0021]-[0023], wherein the first dentate portion 4 is restrained by the head portion due to element 2 abutting on surface 12 of the head, and wherein first dentate portion 2 is rotatably coupled to axle portion 3 so that rotation of portion 4 translates axle portion 3 downward).
Claim 2 recites the fitting portion of the corpus portion has a material-storing space, and the method comprises a step of pressing the corpus portion against the body to allow material of the body to flow into or enter the material- storing space so as to fix the fitting portion to the body, or the fitting portion is an expanded connection structure, the body has a fitting hole, and the method comprises a step of placing the fitting portion at the fitting hole and pressing the fitting portion against the body to allow the dentate structure to be fixed to the body by the fitting portion through expanded connection, or the fitting portion is a solderable member, the body has a fitting hole, and the method comprises a step of placing the fitting portion at the fitting hole and heating up solder applied to the fitting portion to fix the corpus portion to the body by soldering. Wang teaches the fitting portion having a material-storing space that allows material from the body 6 to enter the space to lock fitting portion to the body (fig. 8, ¶ [0021]-[0022]).
Claim 6 recites the dentate structure further comprises an operating member (2) with a second dentate portion (21) adapted to be actuated and thus motion- linked to the first dentate portion (4) (fig. 7-9, ¶ [0023]), and the second dentate portion moves in a pushing direction to come into contact with the first dentate portion and thus enable linked motion (fig. 7, wherein the second dentate portion 21 moves vertically with respect to first dentate portion 4, i.e. pushing direction, to come into engagement/contact with the first dentate portion 4 to allow linked motion), the linked motion being movement, rotation, relative motion, gear motion, rack motion or linear motion (figs. 7-9, i.e. gear or rack motion), the dentate structure comprises a manipulating portion (32) extended to a side of the first dentate portion (see fig. 8, wherein manipulating portion 32 extends to a side of first dentate portion 4).
Claim 6 also recites the method comprises a step of actuating the manipulating portion to allow the first dentate portion to rotate or allow the first dentate portion to be motion-linked to the second dentate portion to enable movement of the operating member, or operating the operating member so as for the second dentate portion to be actuated and thus motion-linked to the first dentate portion, so as to actuate the manipulating portion through rotation of the first dentate portion. Wang teaches operating the operating member 2 to actuate the first dentate portion 4 via the second dentate portion 21 in order to actuate the manipulating portion 32 via rotation of first dentate portion 4—which translates axle portion 3 downward (see figs. 7-9, ¶ [0021]-[0023]).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2014/0093326 (“the ‘326 reference”).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘326 reference teaches a method of using a dentate structure (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0033]), the dentate structure comprising a corpus portion (30) and a first dentate portion (10 and/or 20) (fig. 1, ¶ [0035], wherein connection section 21 can be via screwing, wherein screws have teeth/dentate), wherein the corpus portion has a head portion (31) being coupled to or integrally formed with an axle portion (32) (fig. 1, wherein portions 31 & 32 are integral, and wherein axle portion 32 allows element 20 to rotate therearound), the method comprising a step of rotatably coupling the first dentate portion (10/20) to the corpus portion (fig. 1, wherein portions 10/20 are movable and rotatable with respect to corpus portion 30—see fig. 5 & ¶ [0040]), and a fitting portion (33) of the corpus portion to be adapted to be fitted to a body (3) to allow the first dentate portion to rotate while the corpus portion is fixed (fig. 3, ¶ [0038]), with the first dentate portion (10/20) being restrained by the head portion and thus rotatably coupled to the axle portion (as illustrated in figs. 1-3 & 5, the first dentate portion is restrained in the upward direction via head 31 and is movable and rotatable around axle portion 32).
Claim 2 recites the fitting portion of the corpus portion has a material-storing space, and the method comprises a step of pressing the corpus portion against the body to allow material of the body to flow into or enter the material- storing space so as to fix the fitting portion to the body, or the fitting portion is an expanded connection structure, the body has a fitting hole, and the method comprises a step of placing the fitting portion at the fitting hole and pressing the fitting portion against the body to allow the dentate structure to be fixed to the body by the fitting portion through expanded connection, or the fitting portion is a solderable member, the body has a fitting hole, and the method comprises a step of placing the fitting portion at the fitting hole and heating up solder applied to the fitting portion to fix the corpus portion to the body by soldering. Wang teaches fitting portion having a material-storing space that allows material from the body 6 to enter the space to lock fitting portion to the body (fig. 3, ¶ [0038], i.e. solder that is heated during welding).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Protecting Parts with Anti-friction Coatings, American Coatings Association, Screen shot taken on February 23, 2021, available at https://www.paint.org/coatingstech-magazine/articles/protecting-parts-with-anti-friction coatings/ ("ACA").
Regarding claim 3, Wang fails to explicitly teach the dentate structure comprises a friction-reducing intervening member, and the method comprises a step of mounting the friction-reducing intervening member in place between the corpus portion and the first dentate portion. However, this would have been obvious in view of ACA.
ACA teaches that anti-friction coatings, such as dry or solid film lubricants, are known to be provided between moving parts to prevent sticking, wear, etc. (page 1, wherein all references to ACA refer to the document submitted with the Office action mailed on November 13, 2025). Dry film lubricants can be used on metal, plastic, elastomeric, or wood, and also provide abrasion and chemical resistance (page 2). Dry film lubricants also reduce noise (page 2).
In this case, Wang teaches corpus portion 1 movably contacting portion 2 in order to drive member 3 (fig. 1-9 & paras. [0020]-[0023] of Wang). One of skill in the art appreciates that anti-friction coatings are widely known to reduce friction between parts that move and contact each other. ACA teaches that anti-friction coatings can be used a wide variety of materials and can reduce friction/sticking, wear, noise, and provide abrasion resistance. Thus, it would be obvious to provide an anti-friction coating on top of corpus portion 1 or the bottom of portion 2 in order to reduce friction/noise when moving portion 2 with respect to corpus portion 1. This will predictably allow less force to be used when attempting to screw fixing member 34 of Wang into object 7 since there will be less friction between members 1 & 2. This can also predictably reduce unwanted noise from the sliding of the parts.
Given the above modification, the anti-friction coating is interpreted as the intervening member. This intervening member reduces friction and is provided vertically between the corpus portion 1 and first dentate portion 4 when viewing fig. 8.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the ‘326 reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ACA.
Regarding claim 3, the ‘326 reference fails to explicitly teach the dentate structure comprises a friction-reducing intervening member, and the method comprises a step of mounting the friction-reducing intervening member in place between the corpus portion and the first dentate portion. However, this would have been obvious in view of ACA.
ACA teaches that anti-friction coatings, such as dry or solid film lubricants, are known to be provided between moving parts to prevent sticking, wear, etc. (page 1, wherein all references to ACA refer to the document submitted with the Office action mailed on November 13, 2025). Dry film lubricants can be used on metal, plastic, elastomeric, or wood, and also provide abrasion and chemical resistance (page 2). Dry film lubricants also reduce noise (page 2).
In this case, the ‘326 reference teaches corpus portion 30 movably contacting first dentate portion 20 (see figs. 4-5 of the ‘326 reference). One of skill in the art appreciates that anti-friction coatings are widely known to reduce friction between parts that move and contact each other. ACA teaches that anti-friction coatings can be used a wide variety of materials and can reduce friction/sticking, wear, noise, and provide abrasion resistance. Thus, it would be obvious to provide an anti-friction coating between the corpus portion 30 and first dentate portion 20 in order to reduce friction, noise, or damage.
Given the above modification, the anti-friction coating is interpreted as the intervening member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 14: the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure comprising an operating member (comprising a second corpus portion and second dentate portion), wherein the second corpus portion is fitted (i.e. attached) to a second body in a pushing or puling direction, and movably fitting the second corpus portion to the second dentate portion in the pushing or pulling direction, such that the second dentate portion is actuated and motion linked to the first dentate portion along the pushing or pulling direction, in combination with the other limitations of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The claim amendments overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn. Wang is still used in the prior art rejections above but the elements are interpreted differently than the previous prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights