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 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 1-16 and 23-25 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: at least some elements that are “foldable” to define the “foldable mechanism”. The entire claim does not provide any components that are foldable (or pivotable, or rotatable), i.e., claim 1 defines a “foldable mechanism” without any foldable components. It is not clear exactly how a base, a shaft cover, and locking members are structurally and functionally linked to each other or linked to other elements to perform folding. At the most, claim 1 merely embraces a cover or a base of a foldable mechanism, but that is not an operable “foldable mechanism”. Therefore, the invention as claimed cannot be fully understood and thus raise uncertainty of operability. Note similar issues in claim 15.
In claim 1, line 9, “an outer diameter” is vague and indefinite, without defining the geometry of the head. Note similar issue in claim 15.
In claim 1, lines 9-11 are confusing because it is not clear exactly how each of the “locking members” (i.e., a plurality of locking members defined on lines 1-2 of the claim) is related/linked to “a base” (a single base). Note similar issue in claim 15.
In claim 10, lines 2-3, “a thickness of a region in the base and corresponding to the head” is not understood. Specifically, it is not clear exactly what “a region” is referring to and how this region is “corresponding” to the head. Note that “corresponding” has multiple definitions.
In claim 12, line 1, “the threaded member” should be “each threaded member”, since there are multiple threaded members. Note similar issue in claim 24.
Note that other claims, depending on the rejected claims stated above, are also considered vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 23-25 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. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
US 2024/0111340 A1 (NIU et al.) shows a folding mechanism including a cover having a mounting hole, the cover in one embodiment being mounted to a base by a screw extending through the mounting hole of the cover, to provide protection and shielding of a swing arm of the folding mechanism. However, NIU does not show any locking members to lock the base to the cover as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights