DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 11 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 20, 2026. The traversal was acknowledged and made final in the non-final rejection mailed April 22, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,060,473 (Schumb).
Regarding claim 1, Schumb discloses a strut (see Figures 1-8), comprising:
an elongate member (10 and 12) extending in an axial direction and defining a spacer (shaft 10 spacing connector half 12 from the instrument to be connected; see Figure 5 and page 1, column 1, lines 12-22), at least one axial end of the elongate member comprising
a connector half (12) that is configured to be selectively coupled to a geometrically identical other connector half of another strut and an accessory (11, 13; see Figure 5), said connector half comprises comprising
protruding interlock parts (14) and
interlock recesses (27) to allow said connector half to mechanically interlock with the geometrically identical other connector half (13) and thereby define a connector that allows the strut to be connected to the other strut of similar type in a rotationally locked manner (see Figure 5 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-18),
said connector half being configured to be rotationally coupled to the accessory (see Figure 5 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 2, Schumb discloses the elongate member (10 and 12) is extendable, the elongate member comprising an outer member (12) and an inner member (10) that are moveable relative to each other (via the set screw and keyed connection shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Schumb discloses the connector half (12) comprising a geometrical shape configured to connect with the geometrically identical other connector half (13) to create a mating connection therebetween (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Schumb discloses the protruding interlock parts (14) and the recessed interlock recesses (27) are distributed around the circumference of the connector half (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Schumb discloses the protruding interlock parts (14) and the interlock recesses (27) are alternately distributed around the circumference of the connector half (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Schumb discloses the connector half (12) exhibits rotational symmetry of order two or more (three; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Schumb discloses the connector half (12) comprises three or more protruding interlock parts (14) and three or more interlock recesses (27; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Schumb discloses the connector half exhibits rotational symmetry of an order identical to the number of protruding interlock parts (14) and interlock recesses (27; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Schumb discloses the protruding interlock parts (14) and the interlock recesses (27) are axially oriented relative to the connector half (12; see Figures 1, 2, and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Schumb discloses each of the connector halves (12, 13) comprises one or more than one channel (see annotated Figures 1 and 2 below) to allow a through feed of fluid from a first one of the two connector halves to a second one of the two connector halves (see Figure 5; see also the 112 rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 of Schumb
PNG
media_image2.png
307
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 5 of Schumb
Regarding claim 13, Schumb discloses each connector half (12, 13) comprises at least two channels, wherein:
a first channel (see annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) of the one or more channels is disposed in at least one of the protruding interlock parts (14), and
a second channel (see annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) of the at least two channels is arranged disposed in at least one of the interlock recesses (27; see also the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, Schumb discloses each of the connector halves (12, 13) comprises a locking part (18) and a locking recess (10), the locking part being configured to engage in the locking recess of the other connector half when the connector half is mechanically interlocked with the other connector half (see Figures 4 and 5 and the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Schumb discloses an assembly (see Figures 1-8), comprising:
the strut according to claim 1 (see rejection above),
wherein the connector half (12) of said strut is one of:
connected to the other connector half (13) of the other strut in a rotationally locked manner to prevent a relative rotation between the strut and the other strut (see Figure 5 and page 1, column 2, lines 13-18), and
rotationally coupled to the accessory to thereby allow the accessory to be rotatable relative to the strut.
Regarding claim 16, Schumb discloses the connector half (12) comprises a coupler that is configured to couple with a counter-coupler of the accessory, when the connector half is rotationally coupled to the accessory (see Figures 2 and 3),
wherein radially inwardly directed surfaces of the protruding interlock parts (14) of the connector half define an interface of the coupler that is configured to engage an outer circumference of the counter-coupler (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Schumb discloses the outer circumference of the counter-coupler (13) exhibits a rotation symmetric outer surface that is at least partially enclosed by the radially inwardly directed surfaces of the protruding interlock parts (14, see Figures 2 and 3; see also the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, Schumb discloses a locking part (18) of the connector half (12) is further configured to engage in a circumferential recess of the counter-coupler (13) when the accessory is rotationally coupled to the connector half to thereby allow the counter-coupler of the accessory to be locked in the axial direction relative to the coupler of the connector half while allowing the counter-coupler to rotate relative to the coupler (see Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, Schumb discloses another axial end of the elongate member (10 and 12) of the strut comprises another coupler (13) that is configured to couple with a counter-coupler (11) of the accessory (see Figure 5),
wherein a radially inwardly directed surface at said other axial end defines an interface of the other coupler that is configured to engage the outer circumference of the counter-coupler and allow said counter-coupler to be rotationally coupled to the other axial end of the elongate member (see Figures 4 and 5, and page 1, column 2, lines 13-18; see also the 112 rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the previous abstract objection, claim objection, and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-16, with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claims 1-9 and 12-19 over Schumb have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the outset, it is to be noted Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant summarizes the invention of the instant application multiple times throughout pages 10-14, and proceeds to assert Schumb does not disclose the entirety of claim 1 on page 11 in copying and pasting the claim, as well as copying and pasting a majority of the claim on page 13. Throughout the remainder of the arguments on pages 12-16, Applicant points to claim language without specifically pointing out how exactly Schumb does not disclose the limitations. As such, the Examiner has responded to these assertions to the best of one’s ability.
On page 12, Applicant asserts Schumb does not disclose a strut. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the attached Cambridge Dictionary definitions of “strut”, which set forth a strut as being a rod that helps to hold something together or a support for a structure. To this end, the invention of Schumb constitutes a strut, as it both holds together and supports a power transmitting structure (see, e.g., column 1, lines 1-22).
Further, Applicant is reminded that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “strut” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Further still, Applicant attempts to define a strut on pages 12-13. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 13, Applicant asserts Schumb does not disclose a connector half that is selectively coupled to another connector half. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to Figures 1 and 5, where a connector half (12) is selected and connected to a further connector half (13).
Further, on pages 13-15, Applicant attempts to define the meaning of “selectively coupled”. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further still, it is to be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e. “configured to be selectively coupled”) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
On page 16, with respect to claim 15, Applicant asserts Schumb does not disclose the connector half of the structure is able to be rotationally coupled to an accessory. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to column 1, lines 1-22, and column 2, lines 13-18, which provide for rotational power transmission.
On page 16, with respect to claim 16, Applicant’s arguments are directed to a claim which included a 112 rejection regarding clarity and are therefore moot. Further, the limitations to which Applicant refers are directed to a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. To this end, the strut of Schumb is capable of coupling to a counter-coupler of an accessory in a similar manner to how it is connected to another connector half (13), and the radially inwardly directed surfaces of the protruding interlock parts (14) of the connector half define an interface of the coupler that is configured to engage an outer circumference of the counter-coupler, as shown in Figure 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
