DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
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:
“first clamping assembly” recited in claim 1
“second clamping assembly” recited in claim 2
“first locking system” recited in claim 1
“first elastic member” recited in claim 1
“locking portion” recited in claim 1
“second elastic member” recited in claim 6
“second locking system” recited in claim 9
“third elastic member” recited in claim 9
“first pulling element” recited in claim 11
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 “first clamping assembly” 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 (“assembly”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘configured for clamping’ and “intended to be removably fixed to one of said support base and said semi-finished product”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Examiner recognizes that claim 1 recites the limitation comprising a ‘first connection body.’ However, it is the position of the Examiner that a teaching of a ‘first connection body’ is insufficient structure for performing either of the intended functions of “clamping” or “removably fixed to one of said support base and said semi-finished product.” In reaching this conclusion, Examiner notes that the Specification expressly teaches that a ‘first coupling means’ of the ‘first clamping assembly’ performs the intended function of ‘removably fixing the first clamping assembly to one of the support base and the semi-finished product’ (page 4, lines 30 – 32).
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first clamping assembly” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a first coupling means comprising a first tensioner threaded between two first jaws, wherein the first tensioner comprises a first shaped head and a first threaded shank extending from the first shaped head,’ as taught by the Specification (page 4, lines 30 – 32 and page 14, lines 10 – 19), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second clamping assembly” 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 (“assembly”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“clamping” or ‘configured for clamping’ and “intended to be removably fixed to the other of said semi-finished product and said support base”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Examiner recognizes that claim 1 recites the limitation comprising a ‘second connection body.’ However, it is the position of the Examiner that a teaching of a ‘second connection body’ is insufficient structure for performing either of the intended functions of “clamping” or “removably fixed to the other of said support base and said semi-finished product.” In reaching this conclusion, Examiner notes that the Specification expressly teaches that a ‘second coupling means’ of the ‘second clamping assembly’ performs the intended function of ‘removably fixing the second clamping assembly to the other of the support base and the semi-finished product’ (page 5, lines 13 - 16).
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second clamping assembly” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a second coupling means comprising a second pulling element threaded between two second jaws, wherein the second pulling element comprises a second shaped head and a second threaded shank extending from the second shaped head,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 13 – 16 and page 14, lines 21 – 30), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first locking system” 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 (“system”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“locking” or ‘configured for locking’ and “can be switched between a first constraint condition, in which it locks said first and second connection body into one of said first adjustment positions, and a first release condition, in which it frees said first and second connection body to mutually move one with respect to the other”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first locking system” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a pusher body having a thrust surface and a second elastic member located on the thrust surface, wherein the second elastic member comprises at least one second belleville washer’ as taught by the Specification (page 10, lines 30 – 34 and page 11, lines 16 - 19), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first elastic 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 (“provided to force said first actuation piston into one of said first actuation position and said second actuation position”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first elastic member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘at least one first belleville washer’ as taught by the Specification (page 7, lines 29 - 30), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “locking portion” 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 (“portion”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“locking” or ‘configured for locking’ and “deformable between an expanded configuration, in which it exerts a pressure against said first lateral surface to prevent said first connection body from sliding into said guide seat, and an undeformed configuration, in which it does not exert pressure against said first lateral surface allowing said first connection body to slide in said guide seat”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “locking portion” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of flexible fins extending parallel to the translation direction’ as taught by the Specification (page 10, lines 17 - 20), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second elastic 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 (“susceptible to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the thrust surface of said pusher body and can be actuated by said pusher body between: a release configuration ..., and a compression configuration ...”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second elastic member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘at least one second belleville washer’ as taught by the Specification (page 11, lines 16 - 19), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second locking system” 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 (“system”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“locking” or ‘configured to lock’ and “can be switched between a second constraint condition ... and a second release condition ...”)
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second locking system” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a first pulling element having a threaded shank extending from a widened head’ as taught by the Specification (page 17, lines 17 – 23, page 18, lines 10 – 18, and page 19, lines 9 – 12), or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “third elastic 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 (“provided to force said second actuation piston into one of said third actuation position and said fourth actuation position”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “third elastic member” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘at least one third belleville washer’ as taught by the Specification, or an equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first pulling element” 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 (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“pulling” or ‘configured to pull’ and “to pull ... in a pressurized manner, directly or indirectly, against said second sliding surface”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first pulling element” will be interpreted so as to comprise a threaded shank extending from a widened head’ as taught by the Specification (page 18, lines 10 – 18 and page 19, lines 9 - 12), or an equivalent thereof.
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 – 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “it” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the at least one first clamping assembly.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the other of said semi-finished product and said support base” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the at least one second clamping assembly.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “one with respect to the other” several times in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “they” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first and second connection bodies.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first locking system.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “one with respect to the other” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first actuation piston.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” in the fifth paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first elastic member.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the other of said first and second actuation position” in the sixth paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the seventh paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first connection body.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the last paragraph of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first connection body.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the other of said first actuation position and said second actuation position.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “substantially parallel.” “Substantially” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “it” several times in the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the pusher body.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “it.” It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the at least one second belleville washer.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “itself.” It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the opposite smaller base.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “one with respect to the other” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the second locking system.”
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “one with respect to the other” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is generally unclear.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “it” several times in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the second actuation piston.”
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “it” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the third elastic member.”
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the other of said third and said fourth actuation position” in the last paragraph of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the other of said first actuation position and said second actuation position” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the other of said third actuation position and said fourth actuation position” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “it.” It is generally unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first pulling element.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the other of said first sliding surface and said second sliding surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “one with respect to the other.” Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation is unclear.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the other of said second sliding surface and said fourth sliding surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is further unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canuto (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0190895) teaches a first clamping assembly (figure 1, element 7); a second clamping assembly (figure 1, elements 13 and 11); a first actuation piston (figure 1, element 3); and a first elastic member (figure 1, one of elements 48).
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