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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (FIGS. 10A-B and 11-15) in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 137B. The second bias member is apparently shown in FIG.13 (as was previously labeled 137B—see for example FIG.13 of the provisional applications) but there is no reference numeral in FIG.13 of the current application.
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. 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.
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, a front bias member slot (of the front plate 148) of claim 11, and the planar surface of claim 13 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0069], the second sentence states locking tab 125A is “not visible in FIG.8A” but this should be “not visible in FIG.10A” as there is not FIG.8A.
At [0085] the specification begins to refer to the first and second locking tabs 125A,125B as “arms” instead of “tabs” as previously disclosed. The specification should remain consistent throughout and therefore the disclosure of “arms” should be amended to “tabs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 15 not been further treated on the merits.
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 2-13 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.
In claim 2, lines 5-6, the recitation “the first end of the at least one pair of actuator links is disposed within the at least one link seat” doesn’t correspond with what is shown in the drawing figures and previously recited. Specifically, the claim recites “a first through-hole” at “a first end” which is shown in the drawing figures as “112A” which is not the end disposed within the at least one link seat. It is the second end (112B) which is shown seated in the link seat.
In claim 3, lines 1-3, the recitation the pivot pin disposed within …“the first through-hole” of the pair of actuator links is not what is shown in the drawings figures and disclosed. Specifically, it is apparently the second through-hole (112B) through which the pivot pin extends.
In claim 4, lines 3-5, the recitation “the second end of an individual actuator link” is disposed within the groove is not apparently what is shown in the drawing figures and disclosed in the claims. It is the “first end” (112A) of an individual link that is apparently disposed in the groove (132).
In claim 5, lines 1-3, the recitation of the dowel pins (135) disposed through “the second through-hole” (112B) of the links (111) should apparently be “the first through-hole” (112A).
In claim 6, lines 7-8, the recitation “the first bias member and the second bias member are inwardly biased toward each other by the first bias member and the second bias member” is awkwardy, confusing, and unclear. It is the first and second locking tabs that are “inwardly biased” toward each other and perhaps these lines should be amended to recite “the first locking tab and the second locking tab” at line 7.
In claim 8, lines 6-7, the recitation “wherein the first end of the at least one pair of actuator links is disposed within the at least one link seat” is awkward and confusing as it does not correspond with the drawings and specification which shows it is the second end (112B) which is seated in the link seat.
In claim 8, lines 8-9, the recitation “a pivot pin” (119) “disposed within the plurality of longitudinally aligned through-holes” (118) “and the first through-hole of the at least one pair of actuator links” is awkward and confusing as it is the second through hole (112B) of the actuator links (111) which is provided with the pivot pin (119) disposed therethrough not the first through-hole (112A) as recited.
In claim 8, line 12, “of the locking tabs” should be recited after both “a first end” and “a second end” to make clear that the ends recited are of the locking tabs for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, lines 13-15, the recitation wherein the second end of an individual actuator link of the at least one pair of actuator links (111) is disposed within the at least one groove (132) should be “the first end” of link (111).
In claim 8, line 16, the recitation a hole disposed through “the first end” should be “the first end of the individual link” for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, lines 17-19, the recitation of a pair of first dowel pins (135, [0077]) disposed within the hole (131) of the first locking tab (125A) and the hole (131) of the second locking tab (125B) and through the second through-hole of the at least one pair of actuator links (111) is incorrect. The disclosure makes clear that the dowel pin (135) is disposed through the “first through-hole” (112A).
In claim 8, line 24, “respectively” should perhaps be added after “a pair of second dowel pins” (134).
In claim 9, lines 9-11, the recitation “the first end of the first pair of actuator links is disposed within the first link seat” is awkward and indefinite as it is the “second end” (112B) of the first pair of actuator links that is disposed in the link seat and not the first end as recited.
In claim 9, lines 12-13, the recitation “the second end of the first pair of actuator links is disposed within the first groove” is awkward and confusing as it is the “first end” (112A) that is disposed within groove (132) of the locking tabs.
In claim 9, lines 12-13, the recitation “and the second end of the second pair of actuator links is disposed within the second groove” is likewise awkward and confusing as it is the “first end” (112A) of the first pair of actuator links (111) that is disposed within the groove (132) of the locking tabs and not the second end as recited.
In claim 10, lines 7-8, the recitation “the first bias member and the second bias member are inwardly biased toward each other by the first bias member and the second bias member” is awkward and confusing as it is the first and second locking tabs that are inwardly biased. Perhaps the phrase should recite “the first locking tab and the second locking tab are inwardly biased” instead.
In claim 11, line 2, “a rear bias member slot” was discloses in the specification as a “second” bias member slot and either the claim language or specification should be modified for consistency.
In claim 11, lines 3-4, the recitation “is disposed within both the rear plate second bias member slot of the rear bias member slot of the actuator body” is awkward, confusing, and indefinite. The language should instead recite “both the second (sic rear) bias member slot” (138) of the rear plate (136) “and the second bias member slot” (124) “of the rear bias member slot of the actuator body”.
In claim 11, line 5, the recitation of “the front plate comprises a front bias member slot” is awkward and confusing as there is no disclosure in the specification nor any disclosure (shown or numbered) to a front bias member slot.
In claim 13, line 2, the recites “planar surface” is unclear as to what component of the invention the applicant is referring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-13 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.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific first and second locking tabs pivotally coupled to the rear plate such that they are inwardly biased toward each other, and movement (translation) of the actuator body in a direction toward the post body outwardly pivots the first locking tab and the second locking tab away from each other in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record. Addition, the preamble limitations have been relied upon. "[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention. See also Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights