CTNF 18/670,146 CTNF 92676 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figures 16-18 are difficult to view due to the transparent lines in the figures, resulting in difficulty determining the structure within the figures. Applicant should remove the hidden lines in each of the figures . New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they fail to comply with the following §1.84 sections. New corrected drawings in compliance with §1.84(m) are required in this application because the shading, particularly in Figure 17, makes it difficult to determine the structure of the claimed invention . 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 14 & 17-18 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. As to Claim 2 , the phrase “counter-clockwise around a longitudinal axis” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition to requiring an axis, the term counter-clockwise requires a point of view. For instance, a rotating object may be interpreted as rotating clockwise when viewed from above. However, the same rotating object would be interpreted as rotating counter-clockwise when viewed from below. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first direction is counter-clockwise around a longitudinal axis of the connector body when viewed from an end of the connector body on the second portion. As to Claim 3 , the phrase “clockwise around a longitudinal axis” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition to requiring an axis, the term counter-clockwise requires a point of view. For instance, a rotating object may be interpreted as rotating clockwise when viewed from above. However, the same rotating object would be interpreted as rotating counter-clockwise when viewed from below. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the second direction is clockwise around a longitudinal axis of the connector body when viewed from the end of the connector body on the second portion. Additionally, the term “a longitudinal axis” is indefinite. It is not clear if the longitudinal axis defined in Claim 3 is the same as the longitudinal axis defined in Claim 2, or if the respective axes are different. For the purpose of examination, the two axes will be interpreted as the same axis. As to Claim 9 , the term “the body” is indefinite. Two bodies have been previously defined –the connector body and the torsion member body. As such, it is not clear which body is being referred to with the term. For the purpose of examination, the term will be interpreted as the torsion member body. As to Claim 12 , the limitation “the torsion member is coupled to the base such that the torsion member does not rotate with respect to the base” is indefinite in light of the specification. When the connector is rotated as an independent unit or in some instances in the second direction, the torsion member will rotate with respect to the base. As such, the limitation requires context which is not provided. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the torsion member is coupled to the base such that the torsion member does not rotate with respect to the base, when rotated in the second direction. As to Claim 14 , the term “at least a portion of the lumen” is indefinite. Structure defined as at least a portion of the lumen was previously defined in Claim 13. As such it is not clear if the at least a portion of the lumen in Claim 13 is the same at least a portion of the lumen in Claim 14, or if the respective at least a portion of the lumens are different. For the purpose of examination, the at least a portion of the lumen in each claim will be interpreted as the same at least a portion of the lumen. The term “at least a portion of the tubular member”, in Line 3, is indefinite. Structure defined as at least a portion of the tubular member was previously defined in Line 2. As such it is not clear if the at least a portion of the tubular member in Line 3 is the same at least a portion of the tubular member in Line 2, or if the respective at least a portion of the tubular members are different. For the purpose of examination, the at least a portion of the tubular member, in Line 2, will be interpreted as a different at least a portion of the tubular member than the at least a portion of the tubular member in Line 3. As to Claim 17 , the phrases “counter-clockwise around a longitudinal axis” and “clockwise around a longitudinal axis” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The phrases are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition to requiring an axis, the terms counter-clockwise and clockwise require a point of view. For instance, a rotating object may be interpreted as rotating clockwise when viewed from above. However, the same rotating object would be interpreted as rotating counter-clockwise when viewed from below. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first direction is counter-clockwise around a longitudinal axis of the connector body when viewed from an end of the connector body on the second portion, and wherein the second direction is clockwise around a longitudinal axis of the connector body when viewed from the end of the connector body on the second portion. Additionally, the term “a longitudinal axis”, in Lines 2-3, is indefinite. It is not clear if the longitudinal axis defined in Lines 2-3 is the same as the longitudinal axis defined in Line 2, or if the respective axes are different. For the purpose of examination, the two axes will be interpreted as the same axis. As to Claim 18 , the term “the body” is indefinite. Two bodies have been previously defined –the connector body and the torsion member body. As such, it is not clear which body is being referred to with the term. For the purpose of examination, the term will be interpreted as the torsion member body. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7 & 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wells (U.S. PGPub 2024/0269452) . As to Claim 1, Wells teaches a connector (2002, using the torsion member of Figure 6), comprising: a connector body (2014/2018) comprising: a first portion (the bottom portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) with a threaded surface (2022), a second portion (the top portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) opposite (as shown in Figure 5) the first portion (the bottom portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5), and a lumen (2008) extending from (as shown in Figure 5) the first portion (the bottom portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) to (as shown in Figure 5) the second portion (the top portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5); a base (2016) axially coupled to (as shown in Figure 5) the connector body (2014/2018); and a torsion member (2040) coupled to (as shown in Figure 5) the connector body (2014/2018) and the base (2016), wherein the torsion member (2040) is configured to permit rotation between (Paragraph 0122) the connector body (2014/2018) and the base (2016) in a first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) and prevent rotation between (Paragraph 0122) the connector body (2014/2010) and the base (2016) in a second direction (clockwise; Paragraph 0122). As to Claim 2, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) is counter-clockwise (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) around a longitudinal axis (the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 3, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, and continues to teach the second direction (clockwise; Paragraph 0122) is clockwise (clockwise; Paragraph 0122) around a longitudinal axis (the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 4, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the second portion (the top portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018) includes one or more slip surfaces (see Figure 3 below), wherein each of the one or more slip surfaces (see Figure 3 below) is configured to contact (Paragraph 0122) the torsion member (2040) to permit rotation in the first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122). PNG media_image1.png 618 529 media_image1.png Greyscale Wells Figure 4, Modified by Examiner As to Claim 5, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 4, and continues to teach each of the one or more slip surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) is non-parallel to (as shown in Figure 4) a radial axis (a line extending from the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5, to surface 2030 in the same plane as the locking surface shown in Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 6, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 4, and continues to teach the second portion (the top portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018) includes one or more locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above), wherein each of the one or more locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) is configured to contact (Paragraph 0122) the torsion member (2040) to prevent rotation in the second direction (clockwise; Paragraph 0122). As to Claim 7, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 4 & 6, and continues to teach each of the one or more locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) is substantially parallel to (as shown in Figure 4) a radial axis (a line extending from the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5, to surface 2030 in the same plane as the locking surface shown in Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 9, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the torsion member (2040) includes a body (2045) and one or more arms (2047) deflectable with respect to (Paragraph 0122) the body (2045). As to Claim 10, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 9, and continues to teach the connector body (2014/2018) deflects (Paragraph 0122) the one or more arms (2047) to permit rotation in (Paragraph 0122) the first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122). As to Claim 11, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the torsion member (2040) is axially positioned between (as shown in Figure 5) at least a portion (2024) of the connector body (2014/2018) and at least a portion (the bottom of 2016, as viewed in Figure 5) of the base (2016). As to Claim 12, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the torsion member (2040) is coupled to (as shown in Figure 5) the base (2016) such that the torsion member (2040) does not rotate with respect to (when the connector is rotated in the second direction, the torsion member will not rotate with respect to the base, since the base and the connector body do not rotate with respect to each other) the base (2016). As to Claim 13, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach at least a portion (the portion of lumen 2008 above flange 2024, as viewed in Figure 5) of the lumen (2008) passes through each of (as shown in Figure 5) the torsion member (2040) and the base (2016). As to Claim 14, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 & 13, and continues to teach the second portion (the top portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5) includes a tubular member (2026) defining (as shown in Figure 5) at least a portion (the portion of lumen 2008 above flange 2024, as viewed in Figure 5) of the lumen (2008), wherein at least a portion (the portion of 2026 within torsion member 2040, as viewed in Figure 5) of the tubular member (2026) passes through (as shown in Figure 5) an aperture (2052) in the torsion member (2040), and wherein at least a portion (the portion of 2026 within base 2016, as viewed in Figure 5) of the tubular member (2026) passes through (2026) an opening (the opening in 2016, as viewed in Figure 5, through which tubular member 2026 passes) in the base (2016). As to Claim 15, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the threaded surface (2022) is located on an exterior of (as shown in Figure 5) the first portion (the bottom portion of 2014/2018, as viewed in Figure 5). As to Claim 16, Wells teaches a connector (2002, using the torsion member of Figure 6), comprising: a connector body (2014/2018) comprising: a threaded surface (2022), a plurality of slip surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above), a plurality of locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above), and a lumen (2008) therein; a base (2016) axially coupled to (as shown in Figure 5) the connector body (2014/2018); and a torsion member (2040) coupled to (as shown in Figure 5) the connector body (2014/2018) and the base (2016), wherein the torsion member (2040) is configured to engage (Paragraph 0122) the plurality of slip surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) to permit rotation between (Paragraph 0122) the connector body (2014/2018) and the base (2016) in a first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) and engage (Paragraph 0122) the plurality of locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) to prevent rotation between (Paragraph 0122) the connector body and the base (2016) in a second direction (clockwise; Paragraph 0122). As to Claim 17, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, and continues to teach the first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) is counter-clockwise (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122) around a longitudinal axis (the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018), and wherein the second direction (clockwise; Paragraph 0122) is clockwise (clockwise; Paragraph 0122) around a longitudinal axis (the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 18, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, and continues to teach the torsion member (2040) includes a body (2045) and one or more arms (2047) deflectable with respect to (Paragraph 0122) the body (2045), and wherein the connector body (2014/2018) radially deflects (Paragraph 0122) the one or more arms (2047) to permit rotation in (Paragraph 0122) the first direction (counterclockwise; Paragraph 0122). As to Claim 19, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, and continues to teach each of the plurality of slip surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) is non-parallel to (as shown in Figure 4) a radial axis (a line extending from the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5, to surface 2030 in the same plane as the locking surface shown in Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) of the connector body (2014/2018), and wherein each of the plurality of locking surfaces (see Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) is parallel to (as shown in Figure 4) the radial axis (a line extending from the up and down axis of 2014/2018 through lumen 2008, as viewed in Figure 5, to surface 2030 in the same plane as the locking surface shown in Figure 4 in the Claim 3 rejection above) of the connector body (2014/2018). As to Claim 20, Wells teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, and continues to teach at least a portion (the portion of lumen 2008 above flange 2024, as viewed in Figure 5) of the lumen (2008) passes through each of (as shown in Figure 5) the torsion member (2040) and the base (2016) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As to Claim 8 , the prior art of record teaches each of the limitations of Claims 1, 4 & 6 but does not teach “the second portion of the connector body defines one or more windows in a sidewall thereof, and wherein each window is defined in part by at least one of the one or more locking surfaces and at least one of the one or more slip surfaces”. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to disclose each of the limitations of Claim 8. The closest art of record is Wells (cited above). However, Wells does not describe windows defined by the locking and slip surfaces. It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wells without significant structural modification and without the benefit of hindsight. Therefore, this limitation, as claimed in Claim 8, is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guala (2013/0187381), Fog (2013/0076030), and Leung (2020/0271171) each teach similar connectors with a one way clutch mechanism . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT. 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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. /DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 2 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 3 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 4 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 5 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 6 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 7 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 8 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 9 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 10 Art Unit: 3783 Application/Control Number: 18/670,146 Page 11 Art Unit: 3783
Prosecution Insights