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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 2, replace “comprising” with “including”. Legalese style language is not permitted within the abstract.
Line 6, replace “comprises” with “includes”
The abstract appears to contain reference numerals. Remove the reference numerals from the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 20-38 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 claims 20, 26, and 33, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, each instance of the phrase “can be” should be replaced with something similar to “configured to”. The following instances of “can be” have been identified:
Claim 20, Lines 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14.
Claim 26, Line 2.
Claim 33, Lines 3 and 4.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the location and/or position of the adapter portion" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To fix this replace "the location and/or position of the adapter portion" with "a location and/or position of the adapter portion".
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the location and/or position of the locking element" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To fix this replace "the location and/or position of the locking element" with "a location and/or position of the locking element".
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the presence of a gripping element" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To fix this replace "the presence of a gripping element" with "a presence of a gripping element".
Claim 22 recites “and/or the monitoring device (106)”. However, the examiner notes that the “monitoring device” was originally introduced in claim 21. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 22 is meant to depend upon claim 21; or whether the phrase “and/or the monitoring device (106)” just lacks antecedent basis? Clarification is required.
Claim 33 recites “two gripping elements (38, 39)” in line 2. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “two gripping elements (38, 39)” as recited in claim 33 relate to the “at least one gripping element (38, 39)” as previously recited in claim 20? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the “two gripping elements (38, 39)” are the same elements as the “at least one gripping element (38, 39)”; however, claim 33 should be modified to indicate as much.
Claim 33 recites “respective adapter portions (66, 67)” in lines 3-4. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “respective adapter portions (66, 67)” as recited in claim 33 relate to the “at least one adapter portion (66, 67)” as previously recited in claim 20? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the “respective adapter portions (66, 67)” are the same elements as the “at least one adapter portion (66, 67)”; however, claim 33 should be modified to indicate as much.
Claim 34 recites “a first gripping pair (40)” and “a second gripping element pair (41)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a first gripping pair (40)” and “a second gripping element pair (41)” relate to the previously recited “a gripping element pair (40)” as recited in claim 33? I.e., are they the same or different elements of the claims? Clarification is required.
Claim 35 recites “a gripping element pair (40, 41)” in line 2. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a gripping element pair (40, 41)” as recited in claim 35 relates to any of the previously recited “a gripping element pair (40)”, “a first gripping pair (40)” and “a second gripping element pair (41)” of claims 33 and 34? Clarification is required.
Claim 36 recites “a gripping element pair (40, 41)” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a gripping element pair (40, 41)” as recited in claim 36 relates to any of the previously recited “a gripping element pair (40)”, “a first gripping pair (40)” and “a second gripping element pair (41)” of claims 33-35? Clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights