DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
a. FIG. 6A: refence symbol “DOC_1”.
3. The drawings are objected to because of the following:
a. FIG. 3: reference symbol “OC1 1” should be replaced with “OC1_1”;
b. FIG. 6A: reference symbol “DOC2” should be replaced with “DOC_2”
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
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 15-16 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claims 1, line 10: the term “other than rotation about the first axis of rotation” should be rewritten as --other than the rotation of the first shaft about the first axis of rotation” for the purpose of clarity. Similarly for claims 6, 12 and 16.
b. Claims 5-6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18 and 20: a comma should be written after each claim number. For example, for claim 5, the term “claim 4 wherein” should be rewritten as --claim 4, wherein--.
c. Claim 6, lines 1-2: the term “wherein the propeller vehicle comprises” should be rewritten as --further comprising-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice. Similarly for claim 16.
d. Claim 7, lines 3-5: the term “a wherein base” should be rewritten as --a base-- for the purpose of clarity.
e. Claim 8, lines 9-10: the term “other than rotation about the second axis of rotation” should be rewritten as --other than the rotation of the second shaft about the second axis of rotation” for the purpose of clarity. Similar for claim 18.
f. Claim 10, lines 1-2: the term “the propelled vehicle further comprising” should be rewritten as --further comprising--. Similarly for claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 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.
8. Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first member” and “the first guide member” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether these members are considered to be the same member or different members. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first guide member” in the claim. Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/24/2025 provides no remedy in this regard. Similarly, claims 8, 12 and 18 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first rotational guide member” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear to whether this member is considered the same as either of the members as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first rotational guide member” in the claim. Applicant’s remarks provide no remedy in this regard. Similarly, claims 4, 12 and 14 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 6 recites the limitations “a second member” and “the second guide member” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether these members are considered to be the same member or different members. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second guide member” in the claim. Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/24/2025 provides no remedy in this regard. Similarly, claim 16 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of fixed legs which extend from the chases to a wherein base; a plurality of movable legs which extend from a movable base” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is considered to be a “wherein base”. Similarly, claim 17 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
12. Claim limitation “module for pressing a pad” in claims 5 and 15 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
With consideration of the substantial number of rejections above, all claims are required to be thoroughly review such that the claimed subject matter satisfies requirements under 112(a) and 112(b). No new matter should be added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim rejections under 112(b), the applicant asserts that “these amendments address” the rejections, however, this is not considered to be persuasive. Applicant is requested to review each claim in light of the rejections under 112(b), as discussed above. A number of the rejections above, were made of record in Office action mailed on 07/22/2025.
As a note, the examiner suggests the filling of the authorization for internet communications form so as to facilitate communication upon a response to this Office action is made of record for the purpose of expedited prosecution.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642