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 Interpretation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Some examples of issues arising from the translation are provided below. It should be understood that this list is not exhaustive, and that Applicant should carefully and thoroughly review the application as filed to ensure that appropriate amendments and clarifications are provided in a formal response to overcome the rejections raised below.
In claim 1, Applicant recites “another other side in the width direction.” This is facially inappropriate grammar and phrasing. “Another” inherently means “an other,” making it unclear what “another other” would be referencing.
In claims 6-13, Applicant recites “a first retaining portion” and “a second retaining portion” throughout the claims. It is not readily apparent what each “retaining portion” is as Applicant fails to use terminology in the claims which would be consistent with terminology in the Specification. As best understood by Examiner, “a first retaining portion” corresponds to “fixing retaining portion 10B,” and “a second retaining portion” corresponds to “a moveable retaining portion 10C.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 2 (“curved…toward a back side”), 3 (“a side opposite to the pushing protrusion side”), 8 (“the press-fitting direction of the press-fitting portion”), 9 (“the first retaining portion side”), 10 (“the second retaining portion side”), 11 (“the first curved portion toward the front side”), 12 (“the front side”) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “a pushing protrusion projecting out to one side in a width direction intersecting the press-fitting direction on a back side of the press-fitting portion in the press-fitting direction” in lines 4-5 of the claim as filed. This limitation is virtually indecipherable, likely due to an overly literal translation from a foreign document. While it appears that “a width direction” is the element modified by “intersecting the press-fitting direction,” it is entirely unclear what Applicant is attempting to convey or recite with “on a back-side of the press-fitting portion in the press fitting direction.”
As a first issue, it is unclear what constitutes “a back side” since Applicant conspicuously fails to clearly define any direction relative to any other element. Moreover, even if the width direction is presumed to intersect the press-fitting direction, it is unclear how it would intersect with the press-fitting direction while simultaneously doing so in the press-fitting direction. In order for the width direction to intersect the press-fitting direction, it cannot be extending along the press-fitting direction. Thus, this limitation is wholly indefinite, and the lack of clarity pervades the remainder of claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “a pushing surface on the back side of the pushing protrusion is opened to the back side” in lines 7-8 of the claim as filed. It is unclear how an element positioned on the back side of another element would simultaneously be opened to the back side on which it is positioned. Thus, the limitation is also wholly indefinite, and the lack of clarity pervades the remainder of claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “a first widened region continuing on the back side of the pushing protrusion” in line 9 of the claim as filed. First, it is unclear how an element which was not previously recited could “continue” to do anything when it did not previously exist. Moreover, it is unclear how it would do so on “the back side” of the pushing protrusion when the back side is seemingly occupied by the pushing surface recited in the immediately preceding limitations of claim 1. Thus, the limitation is also wholly indefinite and the lack of clarity pervades the remainder of claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “the first widened width region is located closer to another other side in the width direction with respect to the press-fitting portion” in lines 10-11 of the claim as filed. It is unclear what precisely “another other side” is supposed to mean as it is grammatically baffling. As best understood by Examiner, the press-fitting portion extends along the width direction (see FIG 9, where press-fitting portion 11 extends along the width direction). Moreover, the “first widened width direction” is not “closer” to the other side; it defines the other side (see FIG 9, where right side “T” helps delineate the “widened width region” 13). Even further, this right side extends upward along the entire contact, thus press-fitting portion is also defined, at least in part, by “another side.” Thus, it is entirely unclear what Applicant is attempting to recite with this limitation; therefore, the limitation is also wholly indefinite and the lack of clarity pervades the remainder of claim 1.
Claims 2-13 fail to cure these deficiencies and are therefore indefinite for at least the same reason. Claim 14 recites an identical limitation, thus it and its dependent claims (claims 15-20) are also indefinite for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “the first widened width region is curved to a convex shape toward the back side.” As “the back side” is indefinite as discussed above, it is unclear how the region might be curved “toward” the back side. Moreover, Applicant previously recited the width region as “continuing on the back side,” making it unclear how it would simultaneously continue along the back side while also curving toward the side it extends along. Claims 3-4 fail to cure this deficiency and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “a second widened width region continuing to a side opposite to the pushing protrusion side of the first widened width region.” As with the first widened width region, it is unclear how the second of such would “continue” to do anything when it did not previously exist. It is also unclear where “the pushing protrusion side” is as Applicant does not positively recite such an element. Moreover, it is unclear which “side opposite the pushing protrusion side” is referencing since, as best understood by Examiner, the “side opposite to the pushing protrusion side” is “another other side” as recited by claim 1 (see FIG 9, where the first widened width region extends to “another other side,” understood by Examiner to be the right side, indicated by reference “T,” meaning that the pushing protrusion side, is not opposite to the second widened width region 14. It is evident from just the above, that claim 3 is virtually incomprehensible as the result of the translation. Claim 4 fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 3 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant recites limitations substantially similar to those rejected in claim 1, above. As such, that rejection applies, mutatis mutandis, to the “second widened width region” as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant recites “the press-fitting direction of the press-fitting portion” in line 2 of the claim as filed. It is unclear whether this is a reference to “the press-fitting direction” of claim 1, which is not specific to the press-fitting portion, or instead an attempt to reference some other direction. Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “the first retaining portion side” in line 2 of the claim as filed. There is no clear antecedent basis for “a first retaining portion side” in any of the preceding claims, rendering the limitation indefinite. Claims 10-13 depend from claim 9, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant recites “the second retaining portion side” in line 2 of the claim. This limitation is deficient for the same reasons as “the first retaining portion side” of claim 9, as discussed above. Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites “the first curved portion toward the front side” in lines 2-3 of the claim as filed. There is no antecedent basis for such a limitation. Claim 9 recites “a first curved portion” which is “curved to a convex shape toward the front side,” but this is not the same as “the first curved portion toward the front side.” Claims 12-13 depend from claim 11, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites “the front side” in lines 2-3 of the claim as filed. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Applicant does not provide any clear frame of reference that would provide definiteness and clarity to “the front side” as presently recited. As such, claim 12 is indefinite. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, fails to cure this deficiency, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites “a first bent portion formed to a convex shape toward the second zone” in lines 203 of the claim as filed. It would appear that this is the same bend formed in claim 9, from which claim 13 depends. It is therefore unclear whether the subject matter of claim 13 is an attempt to alternatively recite the subject matter of claim 9, or an attempt to recite some other subject matter. “[T]he second zone” within claim 13 is deficient for the same reason, when compared to claim 10.
Rejections Based on Prior Art
As shown above, the claims as filed are functionally incomprehensible. The scope and number of issues under §112 preclude any meaningful determination of claim scope, making it impossible for Examiner to reasonably ascertain that which Applicant considers to be the inventive concept. As Examiner cannot reasonably ascertain that which Applicant considers to be the inventive concept, a meaningful search and examination of the instant claims in view of the prior art disclosure cannot be provided at this time. This is NOT AN INDICATION OF ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER. Upon receipt of amendments which provide the necessary definiteness and clarity contemplated under §112, Examiner will evaluate the clarified subject matter in view of the prior art disclosure. Despite Applicant’s failure to comply with the requirements under §112, Examiner has attempted to conduct a search for subject matter similar to that detailed in the instant disclosure as filed. Any cited references should be understood as being apparently relevant to the disclosure as best understood by Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834