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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 18th, 2026 for application no. 18/926,623 filed on October 25th, 2024. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1-2, 9-10, 13 and 15 are amended, and claims 6-8, 12 and 14 are canceled.
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.
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 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the mixed embodiments recited in claim 1 lack proper written description. For example, the recitation of “wherein 1) the spring element is a helical spring which is supported at one end on the armature and at another end directly on the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Fig. 11, the recitation of “2) the spring element is the helical spring which is supported at the one end on the armature and at the another end on a supporting part fixedly connected to the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 2-4, the recitation of “a one-part pawl, movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod, rotatably mounted at another end, or a combination thereof” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 5-7, and the recitation of “a multi-part pawl, movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod, or a multipart pawl that is movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 8-10. The combination of features recited in claim 1 is not supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2163(II)(A) - Read and Analyze the Specification for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 2-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, the mixed embodiments recited in claims 2-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 lack proper written description. For example, the recitation of “1) a one-part pawl, movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod, rotatably mounted at another end, or a combination thereof” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 5-7, the recitation of “2) a multi-part pawl, movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod, or a multi-part pawl that is movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 8-10, the recitation of “wherein 1) the spring element is a helical spring which is supported at one end on the armature and at another end directly on the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Fig. 11, and the recitation of “2) the spring element is the helical spring which is supported at the one end on the armature and at the another end on a supporting part fixedly connected to the armature rod” is specific to the embodiment seen in Figs. 2-4. The combination of features recited in claims 2-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 is not supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2163(II)(A) - Read and Analyze the Specification for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, it is generally unclear how to interpret claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 as Applicant has recited a combination of features that are not supported by the original disclosure. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant.
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed June 18th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed March 18th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 1-2, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities indicated in the previous Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, Applicant’s argument that “As an initial matter, Examiner's rejection does not consider amended independent claim 2, from which claims 9-11, 13, and 15 depend, and therefore does not address the claims as presently pending” (p. 3) is not persuasive. The combination of features now recited in independent claims 1 and 2 are not supported by Applicant’s disclosure. See new 112(a) rejections above necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, Applicant’s argument that “Additionally, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) fails to establish a proper prima facie case. As set forth in MPEP § 2163, the Examiner bears the initial burden of identifying the specific claim limitations that allegedly lack adequate written description support and explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the disclosure as supporting the claimed invention” (p. 3) is not persuasive. Examiner believes the previous 112(a) rejections were sufficiently explained to communicate the Examiner’s position. Again, Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, Applicant’s argument that “Here, the Office Action does not identify any particular limitation or specific combination of limitations that is allegedly unsupported. Instead, the rejection is based on a generalized assertion that the claims combine features from different embodiments (e.g., Figs. 2--4 and Figs. 5-10). However, the mere fact that claim elements are associated with different embodiments does not, by itself, establish a lack of written description. The Office Action does not provide any reasoning or evidence explaining why a person skilled in the art would not recognize these features as combinable, nor does it demonstrate that the specification fails to convey possession of the claimed combinations” (p. 3) is not persuasive.
MPEP 2163(II)(A) states “With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim”. As such, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to point out support for the proposed combination of features recited in claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15. Again, Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15, Applicant’s argument that “Here, the specification explicitly provides that "individual features or combinations of features from the different exemplary embodiments shown and described may constitute independent or inventive solutions."” (p. 4) is not persuasive. A boiler plate suggestion that other combinations are possible is insufficient evidence to support the combination of features recited in claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15. Again, Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims drawn towards the various embodiments disclosed by Applicant.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of record.
In conclusion, amended claims 1-5, 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above.
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights