DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 30 and 32-48 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/11/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 32-39 and 43 allowable. Claims 30, 38-42, 44 and 47-48, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between species 1-7, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/04/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 30, 38-42, 44 and 47-48 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 38, 40, 42 and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 line 1 reads “the shape”, --a shape-- is suggested.
Claim 30 line 2 reads “the shape”, --a shape-- is suggested.
Claim 38 line 1 reads “the pin”, --a pin-- is suggested.
Claim 40 line 1 reads “the pin”, --a pin-- is suggested.
Claim 42 line 1 reads “the pin”, --a pin-- is suggested.
Claim 48 lines 2-3 read “the radius”, --a radius-- is suggested
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.
Claims 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.
Claims 30, 40 and 42 recite the limitation “essentially”. The term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” 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.
Claim 41 line 2 recites the limitation “where Z is the number of teeth”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the number of teeth of the inner ring, the number of teeth of the outer ring, or the number of teeth of both the inner ring and the outer ring. MPEP 2173.02 states “During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee' s right to exclude. See Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)”.
Claim 44 lines 1-2 recites the limitation “wherein a tooth shape”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the tooth shape of the inner ring, the tooth shape of the outer ring, or the tooth shape of both the inner ring and the outer ring. MPEP 2173.02 states “During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee' s right to exclude. See Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)”.
Claim 45 line2 5-6 recite the limitation “r(φ) is defined by an equation”. It is unclear what equation defines r(φ). In other words, can r(φ) be defined by any equation imaginable or are there limits to what equation defines r(φ)?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 32-3 allowed.
Claims 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights