DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7 and 9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/4/26. Applicant did not specifically traverse the election with arguments, but claims 5-6 are additionally withdrawn as clearly not being representative of the species (species I, Fig. 4a) because species I does not disclose “a handling means” or the “beak…placed at one of the open ends”.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s preamble to the independent claim and body of the claim set forth multiple limitations directed toward the broader mechanical context of “the device”, as claimed, which are not considered limiting. Applicant has claimed “a device” which is not required to be a single mechanical element, but is defined as “a thing made for a particular purpose; an invention or contrivance, especially a mechanical or electrical one” and the device, as claimed and disclosed, appears to simply be a “snap ring” or “retaining ring”. Therefore, the limitation “device” will be interpreted to mean a single element or component as “snap rings” or “retaining rings” are widely known in the mechanical arts. It appears Applicant wishes to ascribe limitations that are beyond the immediate structure of the retaining ring itself. However, as currently claimed the intended use limitations, functional limitations and limitations directed toward structures other than the retaining ring will be considered non-limiting. Examiner notes that the limitations must be read in light of the specification, but limitations cannot be imported from the specification into the limitations. Since the device appears to simply be a “snap ring” or “retaining ring” there are few limitations which the interpretation thereof will be significantly influenced by the specification.
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) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moyles, U.S. Patent 5,085,548.
Regarding Claim 1, Moyles teaches:
A clip (50) that comprises a resilient retaining means (50/58, Col 5, Lns 28-32) and wherein the clip comprises a locking beak (68).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for axially retaining…on the shaft“, “intended to be…the moving part”, “arranged to cooperate…of its periphery” and “passing through an…axially in place”, and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 2, see Claim Interpretation above, Examiner notes that this claim does not set forth any structural limitations directed toward the clip and is therefore non-limiting. All structural limitations are directed to a structure which is unclaimed. However, The Examiner notes that the prior art meets these limitations (see Figs. 1-2, elements 30, 32, 34).
Regarding Claim 3, Moyles teaches:
A ring body (52/56) that has two arms (58) with open ends, at least one of the two arms being resiliently deformable (Col 5, Lns 28-32), the arms forming the retaining means (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Moyles teaches:
The clip has an inner radius (see Fig. 1).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the remaining limitations must be considered non-limiting as they are drawn to structure which are not positively recited as an element of the device and the Examiner cannot import limitations from the specification into the claims.
Regarding Claim 10¸ the term foil is defined as “metal in the form of very thin sheets” (www.dictionary.com) and the prior art is therefore interpreted to mee the limitation “the clip comprises a metal foil”.
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the remaining limitations must be considered non-limiting as they are drawn to structure which are not positively recited as an element of the device and the Examiner cannot import limitations from the specification into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyles ‘548 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe, U.S. patent 11,256,202.
Regarding Claim 8, Moyles is silent with regard to the clip being made from a wire.
Watanabe teaches a snap ring or retaining ring made of wire (see 80, see Col 10, Lns 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Moyles as being made of wire because wire is a widely available stock material and can be quickly, cheaply and efficiently manipulated into the proper shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights