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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0031], Line 5, replace “40” with “50”
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a proximal direction" in the second to last line. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has already set forth “a proximal direction” earlier in claim 1. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the recitation of "a proximal direction" in the second to last line of claim 1 relates to the previously recited “a proximal direction” of claim 1? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase "a proximal direction" in the second to last line of claim 1 is meant to recite "the proximal direction".
Claim 2 recites “wherein the cam buckle has a rigid frame …” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a rigid frame” as recited in claim 2 relates to the previously recited “a rigid frame” as recited in claim 1? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase “the cam buckle has a rigid frame and” should be deleted from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gripping portion" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase "the gripping portion" is meant to recite "the gripping surface" as the “gripping surface” is recited in claim 1. Additionally, it is assumed that the phrase “the gripping portion" in claim 4, Line 2, is meant to recite "the gripping surface".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a proximal direction" in lines 1-2. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has already set forth “a proximal direction”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the recitation of "a proximal direction" in lines 1-2 of claim 7 relates to the previously recited “a proximal direction” of claim 1? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase "a proximal direction" in lines 1-2 of claim 7 is meant to recite "the proximal direction".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a distal direction" in line 3. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has already set forth “a distal direction”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the recitation of "a distal direction" in line 3 of claim 12 relates to the previously recited “a distal direction” of claim 1? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase "a distal direction" in line 3 of claim 12 is meant to recite "the distal direction".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a proximal direction" in line 1. However, the examiner notes that claim 1 has already set forth “a proximal direction”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the recitation of "a proximal direction" in line 1 of claim 13 relates to the previously recited “a proximal direction” of claim 1? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase "a proximal direction" in line 1 of claim 13 is meant to recite "the proximal direction".
Claim 17 recites “a person may grip the handheld region.” However, the term “may” leaves it indefinite and unclear as to whether the limitations following the term “may” are meant to actually be claimed? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the phrase “a person may grip the handheld region” is meant to recite “is configured to be gripped by a user.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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
