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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on May 26, 2026 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed November 17, 2025 and May 26, 2026 have been approved.
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, the spindle nut having exactly one radially outward-projecting wing and the spindle guide tube having exactly one radially outward-projecting convexity as set forth in claims 1 and 15 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the spindle nut has exactly one radially outward-projecting wing” as set forth in claims 1 and 15 and “the spindle guide tube has exactly one radially outward-projecting convexity” as set forth in claims 1 and 15.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “the spindle is guided so as to be movable axially in a spindle guide tube” on line 6 of claim 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the spindle is guided in the spindle guide tube. It appears that the spindle merely rotates in the spindle guide tube rather than being guided by the spindle guide tube.
Claim 8 is objected to because “a first direction” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the first direction is one of the two directions set forth in claim 7 or if the first direction is in addition to the two directions set forth in claim 7.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a second direction” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the second direction is one of the two directions set forth in claim 7 or if the second direction is in addition to the two directions set forth in claim 7.
Claim 14 is objected to because “the motor vehicle” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is objected to because “a spindle guide tube blank” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the spindle guide tube blank set forth above or is attempting to set forth another spindle guide tube blank in addition to the one set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-16, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “the spindle nut has exactly one radially outward-projecting wing” as set forth in claims 1 and 15 and “the spindle guide tube has exactly one radially outward-projecting convexity” as set forth in claims 1 and 15. The original disclosure fails to provide support for exactly one radially outward-projecting wing or convexity. Note that the drawings show two radially outward-projecting wings or convexities.
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, 4-16, 18-20 and 22 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.
Recitations such as “by way of the latter the spindle nut” on line 23 of claim 1 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What is meant by “the latter” and how does the spindle nut guide the spindle guide tube relative to the torsion tube?
Recitations such as “the at least one internal protrusions” on line 5 of claim 10 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis.
Recitations such as “one radially outward-projecting wing of the spindle nut” on line 15 of claim 15 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the spindle nut can have only one wing when the exactly two radially outward-projecting wings option is selected on line 14 of claim 15.
Recitations such as “the spindle nut has at least two radially outward-projecting wings” on lines 1-2 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the exactly two radially outward-projecting wings set forth above or is attempting to set forth wings in addition to the exactly two radially outward-projecting wings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights