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 .
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 now includes language describing a cam and slot assembly within which a bearing travels. However, a further look at the Specification and Figures fails to provide clear understanding as to how the device operates. The Specification and Figures describe the presence of the cam and slot but fail to clearly locate these structures. Are they portions of the adjustment knob or braking element? Fig. 3B shows the cam and slot with the same dotted lines as the positioning peg. The positioning peg is described as residing on the adjustment knob, but it is unclear whether the cam and slot also reside on the adjustment knob.
Paragraph 41 states rotation in either an engaging or disengaging direction can reduce the normal force. How is this possible with the structure shown in Fig. 3B?
Paragraph 42 describes “rotating the adjustment knob in an engaging direction may also cause slot 345 of cam 349 to pull bearing 344 and braking element 328 away from the drum 329 and reduce the normal force on braking element 328. In this paragraph, the engaging direction of the adjustment knob suggests a clockwise rotation of the adjustment knob relative to the view shown in Fig. 3B. This allows the positioning peg 332 to come in contact and push base peg clockwise as well. If the cam/slot assembly is located on the adjustment knob, then the structure shown would suggest partial movement of the slot/cam relative to the bearing at which point the adjustment plate and adjustment knob would then rotate synchronously when the positioning and base peg are in contact. However, the cam/slot depicted in Fig. 3B does not show a directionality that would reduce the normal force of the braking element. Instead, Fig. 3B suggests either an increase or maintenance of the normal force. Fig. 3B reproduced below shows the region of the cam/slot in which the bearing would be expected to travel. Within this region, the bearing would be expected to either maintain its distance with the sides of the drum or move slightly closer to the drum sidewall. Fig. 3B provides no suggestion that the bearing would move away from the sidewall. Even if the cam/slot assembly were located instead on some undisclosed static structure, there is no conceivable manner in which the rotation of the knob in the engaging direction would reduce the normal force on the braking element.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While not claimed, the manner in which the restoring spring operates is also unclear. Paragraph 42 describes wherein after the adjustment knob is rotated in an engaging direction the restoring spring returns the bearing to a position within the slot such that the braking element reapplies the normal force to the inner surface of the drum. This would make sense if there was a suggestion within the Figures that the spring could return the bearing to the raised portion of the slot/cam. This would coincide with the regions of the cam/slot that are not highlighted in Fig. 3B. The restoring spring is described as being able to return the cam/slot to a position that restores the normal force on the bearing. This functionality is also described in Paragraph 44 after the adjustment knob is rotated in a disengaging direction but the spring is now describing restoration of the position of the cam instead. It is unclear how these actions are distinct with the different language usage. Finally, the restoring spring is described as acting on a pivot pin and the cam. However, it is unclear where the opposed end of the restoring spring acts. Is it also anchored to the knob or some other structure?
Claims 2-7 inherit these same issues and fail to clarify the issues raise above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, it is unclear how the device operates. Specifically, the claimed cam and slot structure operation is unclear and further understanding would be required to move the case forward.
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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights