DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 3 and 4) in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group (Groups I and III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fixing member” recited in claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “fixing member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“member”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“fixing” or ‘for fixing’)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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, 3, and 4 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.
The preamble to claim 1 recites “a base flatness adjusting assembly installed to support the base comprising;” The preamble is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the preamble to be directed only towards the ‘base flatness adjusting assembly,’ such that the ‘assembly’ is configured to be ‘installed to support a base,’ or whether Applicant intends the preamble to be directed toward both the ‘base flatness adjusting assembly’ and the ‘base,’ such that the ‘assembly’ is positively ‘installed to support the base.’ Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the base” in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the preamble as “a base flatness adjusting assembly and a base, wherein the base flatness adjusting assembly is installed to support the base, comprising:”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the lower surface” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the other side” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the upper surface” in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the hemispherical shaft” in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the shaft.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the through-pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the through-tube.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the center.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a center of upper plate member.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the spring.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the hole.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a first through-hole of the through-holes.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the rivet.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the “rivets” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one ‘rivet’ of the “rivets” previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a first rivet of the rivets.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the center of the spring.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the insertion groove.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
As explained above, the claim limitation “fixing member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation and the limitation performing the claimed function (page 3, lines 1 – 2 and page 8, lines 4 – 6), the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure of the ‘fixing member’ to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
As explained above, the limitation “fixing member” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification fails to teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman (U.S. Patent Number 5,104,075).
As to claim 1, Freeman teaches a base flatness adjusting assembly and a base, wherein the base flatness adjusting assembly is installed to support the base (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘base flatness adjusting assembly’ and element 17 being the ‘base’), comprising: a shaft coupled through the base (figure 1, element 11 being the ‘shaft’ and element 17; column 3, lines 26 – 29 and 34 – 40); a fixed nut coupled to one side of the shaft to fix the shaft to the base (figure 1, lower element 16 being the ‘fixed nut’; column 3, lines 34 – 40); an upper piece plate composed of a through-tube coupled to the base and an upper plate member attached to a lower surface of the base (figure 1, element 4 being the ‘through-tube’ and element 15 being the ‘upper plate member’). Examiner notes that this can be found because the upper plate member is attached to a lower surface of the base, via the through-tube (figure 1, elements 15, 17, and 4). Freeman further teaches a lower piece plate installed at a position corresponding to the upper piece plate and supporting the base by coming into contact with an other side of the shaft (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘lower piece plate’; column 3, lines 41 – 54), wherein the other side of the shaft has a hemispherical shape (figure 1, element 13 being the ‘hemispherical shape’; column 3, lines 41 – 56), and an upper surface of the lower piece plate has a slot shape at a position in contact with the other side of the shaft (figure 1, element 19 being the ‘slot’; column 41 – 49).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Freeman teaches that the upper plate member has through-holes (figure 1, elements 25 being the ‘through-holes’; column 3, lines 10 – 12), and bolts are inserted into the through-holes to penetrate the upper plate member (figure 1, elements 8 being the ‘bolts’; column 3, lines 10 – 20). However, Freeman does not teach the bolts combining the upper plate member with the lower piece plate (figure 1, elements 8, 4, 15, and 20) and a spring being inserted into a first through-hole of the through-holes and a first rivet of the rivets being installed in a center of the spring, as required by claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights