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 . 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
Applicant's election with traverse of the strut of Figures 1-10 (Species I) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that US 8,376,865 (Forster), US 7,108,444 (Burgstaler), and US 2006/0280553 (Anthony) do not disclose a connector half that is configured to be rotationally coupled to an accessory.
This is not found persuasive. On the outset, the limitation “configured to be rotationally coupled to the accessory, as set forth in claim 1, line 10, constitutes an intended use recitation. Applicant is reminded that 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 that end, Forster is capable of being rotationally coupled via its interlocking features (315, 317), as set forth in column 3, lines 1-43. Burgstaler is capable of being rotationally coupled via its interlocking features (15, 16), as set forth in column 2, lines 23-31, and claim 1. Anthony is capable of being rotationally coupled via its interlocking features (3), as shown in Figure 3 and set forth in paragraphs [0030]-[0031].
Applicant’s attention is further directed to the rejection over US 2,060,473 (Schumb) below, as well as US 10,221,894 (St. Pierre); US 6,352,385 (Wojciechowski); US 1,660,792 (Hirth); and GB 2268068 (Davies) which also disclose the special technical feature.
It is to be further noted that examining multiple patentably distinct species with different special technical features together in the same application would impose a serious burden on the examiner, as such would require the search of multiple patentably distinct features that otherwise would not have to be searched for, applying appropriate prior art rejections and having to consider and respond to attorney arguments regarding such multiple patentably distinct features and rejections. Is it Applicant’s position that the specific features of the various species are not patentably distinct, and therefore obvious over one another? If so, then such should be clearly admitted on the record.
Finally, it should be noted that, as stated at page 4 of the election requirement, upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicants will be entitled to consideration of claims to the additional species that depend therefrom or otherwise include all of the limitations of that allowable generic claim. In other words, if patentability resides in the generic aspects of the inventions disclosed as opposed to the specific features of the respective species, then there will be rejoinder of those non-elected species and if patentability resides within the specifics of the elected species, then there will be no rejoinder of the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for including a phrase which can be implied. See “The present invention relates to” in line 1. See MPEP 608.01(b). The abstract is further objected to for utilizing legal phraseology instead of being in narrative form. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) for failing to separate claim elements by line indentation at least in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 12-14, and 16-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the connector halves” in lines 1-2. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, only sets forth a single connector half that is configured to (intended use) be connected to an other connector half (see, e.g., claim 1, lines 4-5). Therefore, it is unclear from the claim whether Applicant is intending the subcombination of a strut with a single connector half, or the combination of a strut with a first and second connector half. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as being directed to only the subcombination of a strut with a single connector half, given another connector half is initially recited as part of an intended use. This interpretation is supported by claim 15, which positively claims the other connector half as part of an assembly. This issue is also present in claims 12-14, and as such, the above also applies to said claims.
Claim 16 recites limitations directed to the accessory in lines 1-6. However, it is unclear from the claim how claim 16 applies if the connector half is connected to the other connector half of the other strut in a rotationally locked manner to prevent a relative rotation between the strut and the other strut, as set forth in claim 15, lines 4-6. Claims 17-19 inherit this issue for depending from claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the locking part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; a locking part is not previously recited in the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 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 to 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 halves (12, 13) being geometrically identical are defined as said connector halves comprising identical geometrical shapes that allow a mating connection to be formed between the two connector halves (see Figures 2 and 3; see also the 112 rejection above).
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 (13) of the accessory,
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; see also the 112 rejection above).
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 the locking part (18) is further configured to engage in a circumferential recess of the counter-coupler (13) when the accessory is rotationally coupled to the connector half (12) 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; see also the 112 rejection above).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in regards to connector halves with protruding interlock parts and interlock recesses.
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
April 16, 2026f
Prosecution Insights