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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 5, “between of the” should be –between the--;
Claim 18, Line 4, “shaft; and” should be –shaft.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-7, 11-15, 19-20, & 26-34 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 3 recites “a first clutch”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a second clutch”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence from Claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second reel of material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 5 should depend from Claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second eversion-based actuator" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 5 should depend from Claim 4.
Claim 11 recites “a first clutch”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependence from Claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “a second clutch”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 9.
Claim 13 recites “second direction” in lines 7, 8, & 12, which renders the claim indefinite for reciting that the actuator expands and contracts by rotation in the same direction. Apparently, “second direction” in lines 7 & 8 should be --first direction--.
Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence from Claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first brake" in lines 3 & 9; “the second mode” in line 3; & “the first mode” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Apparently, Claim 13 should depend from Claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the brake" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 16 should depend from Claim 10.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the brake" in lines 5 & 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 16 should depend from Claim 10.
Claim 26 recites “a first clutch” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 24.
Claim 27 recites “a first brake” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “brake” recited in Claim 25.
Claim 28 recites “a second clutch” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “clutch” recited in Claim 24.
Claim 29 recites “a second brake” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if or how the limitation is related to the “brake” recited in Claim 25.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first brake" in lines 3 & 9; “the second mode” in line 3; & “the first mode” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Apparently, Claim 28 should depend from Claim 27.
Claim 31 recites “providing a clutch selectively coupling the reel of material to the shaft”, which renders the claim indefinite for being a duplicate of the limitation recited in line 6 of Claim 24.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the brake" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 31 should depend from Claim 25.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the brake" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 31 should depend from Claim 25.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the brake" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Apparently, Claim 31 should depend from Claim 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 14-18, & 21-25 are allowed.
Claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-20, & 26-34 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LESLIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 am - 4-30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/MICHAEL LESLIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights