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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, lines 3-4, “one or more or more” is not understood. On page 6, line 34, “include” lacks proper syntax. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In amended claim 1 at line 10, “rigidly fixed” is neither discussed nor fairly suggested in the original disclosure of parent application 16/973,180. Neither “rigid” and its variants nor “fix” and its variants appear anywhere in said original disclosure, and there is no illustration in the original drawings of mechanical components supposedly “rigidly fixed” to each other and no explanation in the original specification as to how “first portion 40a” (page 6, lines 3 and 11) or some other element of the linear actuator is “rigidly fixed” to digit 14, as alleged by Applicant. Instead, Applicant’s original specification teaches “resilient members or spring arrangements” (page 8, lines 14-15) to “accommodate any overload through resilient motion” (page 8, lines 9-10; emphasis added), which appears to be at odds with Applicant’s remarks and use of the terms “direct reaction” or “reacting directly” (Applicant’s reply of December 22, 2025: top half of page 8), neither of which terms exists in Applicant’s original disclosure. Because of the procedure for interpreting such claims as set forth in MPEP § 2163.06, prior art may be applicable to any subsequently amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s comments have been considered and are adequately addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Thomas Barrett can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4746. 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 about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights