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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 9/30/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 2-3 and 16 were canceled, claims 1 and 10 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1, 4-15 and 17-18 are pending for this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2009/0270915) in view of Finney (US 4,082,151).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses (Fig. 1-9) a treatment device comprising:
a housing (110);
a motor (114) disposed within the housing;
a drive shaft (shaft of thrusting mechanism 138 having compression spring 146 disposed around it) driven by the motor, having a proximal end adjacent to the motor (see end adjacent to piece 136 in Fig. 10) and a distal end further from the motor (see end distal to piece 136 in Fig. 10), and being configured to translate along a first axis (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]);
a compression spring (146) concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam (144) having a flat end (end having annular ring and facing away from spring 146), and an irregular end (other end of 144 having ramping structures 140 with discontinuity), the drive shaft passing through the helical cam from the flat end to the irregular end (see Fig. 10); and
at least one cam follower (protrusion 134) coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end (Fig. 10) and configured to travel along the helical cam (paragraph [0040]), the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]); and
a hammer (force transfer pin 162) coaxially aligned with and being spaced from the drive shaft (transfer pin 162 coaxially aligned and spaced from drive shaft 138,146 as shown in Fig. 9).
Tsai does not disclose at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft adjacent the distal end, the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned, and the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis, the at least one cam follower coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end.
However, Finney teaches (Fig. 1-2) an impact device comprising a cam follower (cam roller 45) directly coupled to and in contact with a drive shaft (drive shaft 49), the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned (see coaxial alignment of motor 13 and shaft 49 in Fig. 1), the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1) and a helical cam (cam 27) being configured for rotational movement (Col. 2 lines 54-56), but being prohibited from translation along the first axis (via pins 29), the at least one cam follower (cam roller 45) coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end (cam roller 45 is located on proximal end which is adjacent to distal end, and thus comprehends the claim limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsai such that the at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft adjacent the distal end, the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned, and the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis, as taught by Finney, as it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Tsai) with another well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Finney) would provide the expected result of providing a transmission structure for performing a striking motion to generate shock waves (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tsai discloses the helical cam is substantially cylindrical (see shape of cam 27 in Fig. 2 Finney) and includes at least one gradually inclined ramp along its second end (ramping structures 39), the at least one cam follower being configured to travel along the at least one gradually inclined ramp (Fig. 1-2 Finney).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tsai discloses the at least one gradually inclined ramp includes an incline (see incline of ramps 39 in Fig. 2 Finney) that extends about the circumference of the cam for approximately half of a revolution (see Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tsai discloses a precipitous drop-off after the at least one gradually inclined ramp (see Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tsai discloses the at least one gradually inclined ramp includes two gradually inclined ramps (see ramps 37 in Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tsai discloses the device further comprises a power source in the form of a rechargeable battery (battery 112 of Tsai, which “may be rechargeable such that battery may be reused after charging”, paragraph [0035] lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai discloses (Fig. 1-9) a treatment device comprising:
a motor (114);
a drive shaft (shaft of thrusting mechanism having spring 146 disposed around it) driven by the motor, having a proximal end adjacent to the motor (see end adjacent to piece 136 in Fig. 10) and a distal end further from the motor (see end distal to piece 136 in Fig. 10), and configured to translate along a first axis (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]);
a compression spring (146) concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam (144) disposed adjacent the compression spring, the helical cam having a flat end (end having annular ring facing away from spring 146), and an irregular end (end having ramping structures 140 with discontinuity 142),
at least one cam follower (134) coupled to the drive shaft (Fig. 10) and configured to travel along the helical cam, the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis (paragraph [0040]); and
a hammer (force transfer pin 162) coaxially aligned with and being spaced from the drive shaft (transfer pin 162 coaxially aligned and spaced from drive shaft 138,146 as shown in Fig. 9).
Tsai does not disclose at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft adjacent the distal end, the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned, and the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis, the at least one cam follower coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end.
However, Finney teaches (Fig. 1-2) an impact device comprising a cam follower (cam roller 45) directly coupled to and in contact with a drive shaft (drive shaft 49), the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned (see coaxial alignment of motor 13 and shaft 49 in Fig. 1) the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1) and a helical cam (cam 27) being configured for rotational movement (Col. 2 lines 54-56), but being prohibited from translation along the first axis (via pins 29) the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tsai such that the at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft adjacent the distal end, the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned, and the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis, as taught by Finney, as it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Tsai) with another well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Finney) would provide the expected result of providing a transmission structure for performing a striking motion to generate shock waves (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tsai discloses wherein the helical cam is substantially cylindrical (see shape of cam 27 in Fig. 2 Finney) and the irregular end includes at least one gradually inclined ramp (see ramps 37 of Finney).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tsai discloses wherein the at least one gradually inclined ramp includes an incline that extends about the circumference of the helical cam for approximately half of a revolution (see Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tsai discloses at least one precipitous drop-off formed as a vertical wall aligned with a longitudinal axis of the helical cam (see Fig. 2 Finney), the vertical wall being disposed after the at least one gradually inclined ramp (see Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tsai discloses wherein the at least one gradually inclined ramp includes two gradually inclined ramps and two drop-offs (Fig. 2 Finney).
Regarding claim 17, modified Tsai discloses wherein the compression spring is at least partially disposed about the drive shaft (Fig. 10 Tsai).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tsai discloses wherein the compression spring is fully disposed about the drive shaft (Fig. 10 Tsai).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2009/0270915) in view of Finney (US 4,082,151), and further in view of Schlosser (US 2016/0136045).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tsai discloses a system comprising the treatment device of claim 1, where the treatment device is configured to be applied to a body part of a user (e.g. muscoskeletal structure, paragraph [0001] Tsai), but does not disclose the system comprises a guide template partially covering a body part and having at least one window through which the treatment area is exposed.
However, Schlosser teaches (Fig. 2-4) a system for delivering therapy to a user using a treatment device (e.g. “a device for applying pressure”, paragraph [0022]), where the system includes a guide template (bridge 21) for partially covering the body part (an organ 15, e.g. hand as shown in Fig. 2) having at least one window through which a treatment area is exposed (opening in center of bridge that exposes device 12 to a treatment area, paragraph [0047], as well as windows/openings 16 on either side of the center opening, see paragraph [0061]. The illustrated example uses a laser device, however Schlosser discloses that the laser device could alternatively be a pressure device, see paragraphs [0022], [0032], and claim 3 of Schlosser).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Tsai to include a guide template having an opening to expose a treatment area as taught by Schlosser for the purpose of accurately located and applying therapy to specific locations in order to prevent, diagnose, and treat specific diseases (paragraph [0032] lines 1-4 of Schlosser).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 2009/0270915) in view of Finney (US 4,082,151), and further in view of Danby (US 9,889,066).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tsai discloses the therapy device includes a microprocessor to store data (paragraph [0051] Tsai), but does not disclose a display disposed on the housing on the opposite end of the first element, the display being capable of providing instructions to a user during use of the treatment device.
However, Danby teaches a massaging device having a proximal and distal end (distal end being end of device 100 having plunger 130, proximal end being end having grate 120) comprising a control panel (124) at the proximal of the housing (and therefore opposite end of the first element) and discloses the control panel 124 may include a visual display (Col. 4 lines 1-12), where the visual display being capable of providing instructions to a user during use of the treatment device (display indicates to the user massage times, locations, type of massage head to use or the like to ensure covering the desired locations with the customized massage, Col. 9 lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify treatment device of Tsai to include a display disposed on the housing on the opposite end of the first element, the display being capable of providing instructions to a user during use of the treatment device, as taught and suggested by Danby, for the purpose of ensuring the user covers the desired location with the customized massage so that the therapy is optimized (Col. 9 lines 8-11 Danby)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-15, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,080 in view of Finney (US 4,082,151) and Tsai (US 2009/0270915).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims.
For claim 1:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights (see underlined features in the patent claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims.
Patent claim 1
Application claim 1
A treatment device comprising:
a housing; a motor disposed within the housing;
a drive shaft driven by the motor and configured to translate along a first axis;
a compression spring concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam disposed adjacent the compression spring, the helical cam having a flat end, and an irregular end having at least one discontinuity, the drive shaft passing through the helical cam from the flat end to the irregular end, the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis;
at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft and configured to travel along the helical cam, the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis; and
a blunt tip aligned with the helical cam, the blunt tip being configured and arranged to contact body tissue to induce a micro-trauma.
A treatment device comprising:
a housing; a motor disposed within the housing;
a drive shaft driven by the motor and coaxially aligned therewith, the drive shaft having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor, and being configured to translate along a first axis;
a compression spring concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam having a flat end, and an irregular end, the drive shaft passing through the helical cam from the flat end to the irregular end, the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis;
at least one cam follower directly coupled to, and in contact with, the drive shaft adjacent the distal end and configured to travel along the helical cam, the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis; and
a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that patent claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over patent claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
Regarding the additional features, claim 1 of the patent does not disclose, the drive shaft having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor and motor coaxially aligned and a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft and the at least one cam follower coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end.
However, Finney teaches (Fig. 1-2) an impact device comprising a cam follower (cam roller 45) directly coupled to and in contact with a drive shaft (drive shaft 49), the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned (see coaxial alignment of motor 13 and shaft 49 in Fig. 1) the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1) and a helical cam (cam 27) being configured for rotational movement (Col. 2 lines 54-56), but being prohibited from translation along the first axis (via pins 29), the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1).
Tsai teaches (Fig. 1-9) a hammer (force transfer pin 162) coaxially aligned with and being spaced from the drive shaft (transfer pin 162 coaxially aligned and spaced from drive shaft 138,146 as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of patent claim 1 such that the drive shaft and motor are coaxially aligned, as taught by Finney, as it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of claim 10 of patent) with another well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Finney) would provide the expected result of providing a transmission structure for performing a striking motion to generate shock waves (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)); and to further modify the device of modified patent claim 1 to include a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft, as taught by Tsai, for the purpose of providing percussive force to the blunt tip and thus generate a shock wave to be transferred to user.
For dependent claims 4-9, the recited limitations are contained in patent claims 2-9, respectively.
For claim 10:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights (see underlined features in the patent claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims.
Patent claim 10
Application claim 10
A treatment device comprising:
a housing; a motor disposed within the housing;
a drive shaft driven by the motor and configured to translate along a first axis;
a compression spring concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam disposed adjacent the compression spring, the helical cam having a flat end, and an irregular end having at least one discontinuity, the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis;
at least one cam follower directly coupled to the drive shaft and configured to travel along the helical cam, the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis;
a first element disposed at one end of the housing, the first element including a blunt tip aligned with the helical cam, the blunt tip being configured and arranged to contact body tissue to induce a micro-trauma; and
wherein movement of the drive shaft causes translation of the first element.
A treatment device comprising:
a motor;
a drive shaft driven by the motor and coaxially aligned therewith, the drive shaft having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor, and being configured to translate along a first axis;
a compression spring concentric with the drive shaft;
a helical cam disposed adjacent the compression spring, the helical cam having a flat end, and an irregular end, the helical cam being configured for rotational movement, but being prohibited from translation along the first axis;
at least one cam follower directly coupled to the drive shaft adjacent the distal end and configured to travel along the helical cam, the at least one cam follower being configured to translate along the first axis; and
a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that patent claim 10 includes features that are not in application claim 10. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 10 is anticipated by patent claim 10, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 10 is obvious over patent claim 10 with respect to the broadening aspect.
Regarding the additional features, claim 10 of the patent does not disclose, the drive shaft having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor and motor coaxially aligned and a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft and the at least one cam follower coupled to and in contact with the drive shaft adjacent the distal end.
However, Finney teaches (Fig. 1-2) an impact device comprising a cam follower (cam roller 45) directly coupled to and in contact with a drive shaft (drive shaft 49), the drive shaft and motor coaxially aligned (see coaxial alignment of motor 13 and shaft 49 in Fig. 1) the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1) and a helical cam (cam 27) being configured for rotational movement (Col. 2 lines 54-56), but being prohibited from translation along the first axis (via pins 29), the drive shaft driven by the motor (Col. 2 lines 54-59) and having a proximal end adjacent to the motor and a distal end further from the motor (proximal end having follower 45 adjacent to motor 13 and distal end opposite as shown in Fig. 1).
Tsai teaches (Fig. 1-9) a hammer (force transfer pin 162) coaxially aligned with and being spaced from the drive shaft (transfer pin 162 coaxially aligned and spaced from drive shaft 138,146 as shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of patent claim 10 such that the drive shaft and motor are coaxially aligned, as taught by Finney, as it has been held that simple substitution of one well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of claim 10 of patent) with another well-known force transmission configuration (the structure and connections of the drive shaft, helical cam, and cam follower of Finney) would provide the expected result of providing a transmission structure for performing a striking motion to generate shock waves (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)); and to further modify the device of modified patent claim 1 to include a hammer coaxially aligned with, and being spaced from, the drive shaft, as taught by Tsai, for the purpose of providing percussive force to the blunt tip and thus generate a shock wave to be transferred to user.
For dependent claims 11-15 17-18, the recited limitations are contained in patent claims 11-18, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection of claims 1 and 10, applicant argued (page 6 paragraph 3 Remarks) that the cam followers of Finney are disposed adjacent the proximal end of the shaft, not disposed adjacent the distal end as the amended claims now read.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as examiner contends that the followers are disposed both adjacent to the distal and proximal ends of the shaft as shown in Fig. 1 of Finney.
Applicant is suggested to amend claim 1 such that the cam follower is directly coupled to the distal end of the drive shaft in order to overcome rejection, as well as file a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejections (see Double Patenting section above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785