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 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.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 9
The phrase “the two cam locking mechanisms include two pressing pieces and two cam locking levers, the two pressing pieces are respectively rotatably disposed on an inner wall of the handle and an inner wall of the arm brace” on lines 6-8 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably show the pressing pieces with sufficient clarity such that they can reasonably be identified, including the manner in which they would rotate. Applicant describes the pressing pieces as element (42) in Figure 4, but these pressing pieces are shown to essentially be small dots with no details of any kind provided, either in the figures or disclosure. There is no explanation as to how they rotated, or any further explanation as to what they are or how they are implemented. It is unclear, for example, if these processing pieces are shafts, blocks, or any other shape. It is further unclear how they rotated, as no details about their function or implementation are provided. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize how to interpret such a pressing piece in light of the disclosure, and would therefore not reasonably understand the manner in which these pressing pieces are implemented as claimed.
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 1-10 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a handle” on line 5 is indefinite.
Applicant identifies the handle as element “40” in the disclosure, which, as best understood, includes elements 42-44. However, none of these elements are reasonably a handle. Instead, they are locking components or other components that would not reasonably be considered a handle. It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what features do and do not constitute a handle, and it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted in light of the disclosure.
The phrase “the rotation locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly” on lines 8-10 is indefinite. It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the locking mechanisms are configured to “block a length” of the assembly. The mechanisms do not reasonably block a length, and instead allow the length to be adjusted. As best understood, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim feature is intended to mean and is interpreted to mean that the cam locking mechanisms “lock” a length of the telescopic assembly.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “a first guiding rib and a second guiding rib are respectively disposed on an inner wall of the first middle shaft and an inner wall of the second middle shaft, the first guiding rib and the second guiding rib are symmetrical to each other and protrude outward” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the ribs are “symmetrical to each other.” Each of the shafts have a different dimension, which is required for each shaft to fit inside an adjacent shaft as seen in Figure 5. Applicant does not disclose that the ribs are all of identical dimension, and even if they were, applicant does not reasonably disclose where these ribs can be positioned such that they are “symmetrical to each other,” especially when the shafts they are placed on or protrude from are differentially dimensioned. Applicant does not show any ribs in the figures, nor reasonably explain what applicant means by claiming that the ribs are “symmetrical to each other,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what this phrase means in light of the disclosure.
The phrase “the first guiding rib is disposed on a middle portion and a lower portion of the inner wall of the first middle shaft” on lines 6-7 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. Applicant does not reasonably show or describe a middle and lower portion of the middle shaft, nor show how the guiding rib is implemented in such a manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably understand what a portion should be, where the rib must be located to be considered to be disposed on the claimed portions, and therefore would not reasonably understand how such a feature should be interpreted.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “three rotation locking mechanisms” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Claim 1 already recites rotation locking mechanisms, and as best understood, these mechanisms are the same as those recited in Claim 4 but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between the differently recited mechanisms are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that these mechanisms are the same.
The phrase “and the three locking rings are wedge-shaped” on lines 14 is indefinite. As best understood, the locking rings are not “wedge-shaped,” because a ring is not reasonably wedge-shaped. What applicant shows in the figure is cross-section of the ring, and while a cross-section may appear wedge-shaped, the ring itself is not reasonably a wedge or wedge-shaped, and it is there unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that a cross-section being reasonably wedge-shaped meets the claim requirements.
The phrase “the three inner rotation locking shafts are respectively fitted to outer walls of the three locking rings through horn-shaped openings defined at bottom portions thereof” on the last three lines is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably show or explain the recited horn-shape. Elements (35) are not reasonably shown such that any horn-shape can reasonably be identified, and a horn shape can encompass many different types of shapes, making it unclear how such a shape should be interpreted. For example, a “horn” shape can be the horn of an animal such as a bull or other similar shape such as a musical instrument, or it can refer to any shape that amplifies sound. No reasonable “horn” shape can reasonably be discerned, and no structure of the disclosure is reasonably shown to be horned shaped. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by a horn shape. For the purpose of impact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any opening that could amplify a signal is horn-shaped.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the handle and the arm brace are each fitted onto an outer wall of the upper shaft through holes respectively defined on inner walls thereof, with a clearance fit” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) No through holes are shown or explained, and it is therefore unclear how this feature should be interpreted. It is unclear where the holes are on the shaft, and it is unclear what applicant means by stating that the holes are defined “on” inner walls of the shaft. A hole cannot reasonably exist on an inner wall, in that in order for a hole to exist, it would reasonably need to extend through the inner and outer diameter of the shaft, and thus through the shaft. The difference between merely reciting that the shaft has a hole as opposed to a hole “on” and inner wall is unclear. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize how such a feature should be interpreted, as they would not reasonably understand where the hole is or how it is implemented.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by a clearance fit. No further explanation is provided, and no details are shown as to the manner in which this feature is implemented. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant means by a clearance fit, such as how much clearance is or is not permitted to meet this claim limitation.
The phrase “cross-sections of the holes are each matched with a cross section of the upper shaft” on lines 4-5 is indefinite. Applicant does not reasonably show the holes, and thus does not reasonably show or explain what applicant means by claiming that the holes “are matched” with a cross-section of the upper shaft. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant means by such a feature, including where the hole must be located or how large it must be in order to match the shaft as claimed.
The phrase “the two cam locking mechanisms include two pressing pieces and two cam locking levers, the two pressing pieces are respectively rotatably disposed on an inner wall of the handle and an inner wall of the arm brace” on lines 6-8 is indefinite.
Applicant does not reasonably show the pressing pieces with sufficient clarity such that they can reasonably be identified, including the manner in which they would rotate. Applicant describes the pressing pieces as element (42) in Figure 4, but these pressing pieces are shown to essentially be small dots with no details of any kind provided, either in the figures or disclosure. There is no explanation as to how they rotated, or any further explanation as to what they are or how they are implemented. It is unclear, for example, if these processing pieces are shafts, blocks, or any other shape. It is further unclear how they rotated, as no details about their function or implementation are provided. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize how to interpret such a pressing piece in light of the disclosure.
As to Claims 2-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng (US 2024/0288606).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Deng discloses A metal detector, comprising: a detection coil (200) (Paragraph [0039]); a telescopic assembly (100) (Paragraph [0039]); rotation locking mechanisms (see above figure / the combination of each 4,5,6) (Paragraph [0043]), (Figure 1 as an example of one of the tightening ring / locking mechanisms part of the rotation locking mechanisms) ; a handle (see above figure); and an arm brace (see above figure); wherein the detection coil is rotatably connected to and lockable to a bottom portion the telescopic assembly (see above figure), (Paragraph [0048]), the rotation locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly (Figures 1, 6, 7, and 9), (Paragraph [0043]), the handle and the arm brace is slidably disposed at an upper portion of the telescopic assembly (Paragraphs [0039]),(Figure 9 / note the handle extends into part of the elbow rest (arm brace) and where the elbow rest can be adjusted by losing the screw clearly shown in Figure 9), the handle partially extends through an interior of the arm brace (Figure 9), (see above figure), and the handle and the arm brace are locked to an outer wall of the handle through two cam locking mechanisms (see above figure), (Figure 9).
As to Claim 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
450
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Deng discloses the telescopic assembly comprises a lower shaft, a middle shaft, and an upper shaft (Figures 6-9), (Paragraphs [0045]-[0046] / note there must be three shafts (sleeve tubes) because there are three locking mechanisms for them, such as the bottom three shafts in Figure 6); the lower shaft, the middle shaft, and the upper shaft are slidably connected in sequence from bottom to top (Figures 6-9); and an end cap is disposed at a top end of the handle (Figure 6), (see above figure). three rotation locking mechanisms are provided (see above figure / note each mechanism is the combination of 4,5,6), the three rotation locking mechanisms are respectively disposed at a connection between the lower shaft and the first middle shaft, a connection between the first middle shaft and the second middle shaft, a connection between the second middle shaft and the upper shaft (Figures 6,9), (see above figure); and an end cap is clamped at a top end of the upper shaft (see above figure).
As to Claim 3,
Deng discloses a first guiding rib (24) and a second guiding rib (71) are respectively disposed on an inner wall of the first middle shaft and an inner wall of the second middle shaft (Figures 3,4,6), (Paragraphs [0037],[0044] / note each shaft has a guiding rib), the first guiding rib and the second guiding rib are symmetrical to each other and protrude outward (Figure 6 / note the ribs must protrude outward, and being located in the same position relative to each other is being interpreted as symmetrical to each other); a length of the first guiding rib on the inner wall of the first middle shaft is smaller than a length of the first middle shaft (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0037]), the first guiding rib is disposed on a middle portion and a lower portion of the inner wall of the first middle shaft (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0037] / note portions can be defined to meet this claim feature); and third guiding ribs are respectively disposed on an inner wall of the upper shaft and an outer wall of the upper shaft (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0045] / note the rib 71 as the inner and sleeve ring 8 on the upper shaft (in the bottom of Figure 6) and the outer rib is a rib, such as what is indicated at (31) in Figure 5).
As to Claim 4,
Deng discloses wherein three rotation locking mechanisms are provided (Figures 6,9), the three rotation locking mechanisms comprise three locking rings (5), three outer rotation locking shafts (6,3,8), and three inner rotation locking shafts (4); the three inner rotation locking shafts are respectively fixed to an outer wall of the first middle shaft, an outer wall of the second middle shaft, and an outer wall of the upper shaft (Figures 6,9); the three outer rotation locking shafts are connected to outer walls of the three inner rotation locking shafts through threads (Figures 6,9), (Paragraph [0043]), convex ribs (32) are respectively disposed on inner bottom sides of the three outer rotation locking shafts (Paragraph [0042]), the three locking rings respectively define concave grooves on outer sides thereof for matching with the convex ribs respectively on the inner bottom sides of the three outer rotation locking shafts (Figure 6 / note the elements 3,8 have grooves that reasonably match the ribs); and the three locking rings are wedge-shaped (Figure 5 / note in cross-section the ring will appear wedge shaped), the three inner rotation locking shafts are respectively fitted to outer walls of the three locking rings through horn-shaped openings defined at bottom portions thereof (Figures 2-6, note the inner rotation shafts have openings and a circular opening that is reasonably horn-shaped, as it, as best understood, is the same or substantially the same shape as applicant’s horn-shaped opening).
As to Claim 6,
Deng discloses bushings (3,8) are respectively disposed on an outer side of a top portion of the lower shaft (Figure 6), an outer side of a top portion of the first middle shaft (Figure 6), and an outer side of a top portion of the second middle portion (Figure 6), the bushings define guiding grooves on outer sides thereof for matching with the first guiding rib, the second guiding rib, and a corresponding third guiding rib (Figures 3, 5, 6) (Paragraphs [0037],[0044]).
As to Claim 7,
Deng discloses a cross section of a top end of the lower shaft is circular, and a cross section of a top end of the first middle shaft are circular (Figure 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Deng (Deng2) (US 2025/0067895).
As to Claim 5,
Deng discloses anti-slip sleeves (3,8 or 6) are respectively fixed to outer walls of the three outer rotation locking shafts (Figure 6), (Paragraphs [0037],[0044],[0045]).
Deng does not disclose the anti-slip sleeves are silicone.
Deng2 discloses silicone anti-slip sleeves (36,52) are disposed between holes and mounting parts/screws (Paragraphs [0049],[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include anti-slip sleeves are silicone given the above disclosure and teaching of Deng2 in order to advantageously use sleeves that were resistant to rust and thus more durable.
As to Claim 8,
Deng discloses a first through hole is defined at an end portion of the shaft connector (Figure 5 / note opening at top), second through holes are respectively defined at one side of the detection coil (note the holes at the bottom of shaft 1 that the detection coil attaches to).
Deng does not disclose a locking screw passes through the first through hole and the second through holes, a locking nut is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw, and silicone gaskets are respectively disposed between the one side of the detection coil where the second through holes are defined and the end portion of the lower shaft where the first through hole is defined; and the locking screw is "7"-shaped.
Deng2 discloses a locking screw (61) passes through the first through hole and the second through holes (Figure 3 / note the screw passes through the hole in 21 and the detection head protrusion), a locking nut (7) is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw (Paragraph [0055]), (Figure 3), and silicone gaskets (36,52) are defined and the end portion of the lower shaft where the first through hole is defined; and the locking screw is "7"-shaped (Paragraphs [0049],[0050]), (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include a locking screw passes through the first through hole and the second through holes, a locking nut is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw, and silicone gaskets are respectively disposed between the one side of the detection coil where the second through holes are defined and the end portion of the lower shaft where the first through hole is defined; and the locking screw is "7"-shaped given the above disclosure and teaching of Deng2 in order to advantageously allow for the easy replacement of a detection head should it become damaged, and to prevent the incursion of water from damaging the detection head or other electronics.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606).
As to Claim 9,
PNG
media_image3.png
151
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Deng discloses the handle and the arm brace are each fitted onto an outer wall of the upper shaft through holes respectively defined on inner walls thereof, with a clearance fit (Figures 6,9 / note the holes 11 or opening of the shafts themselves); cross-sections of the holes are each matched with a cross section of the upper shaft (Figure 6); and the cam locking mechanism includes a pressing piece (see above figure) and one cam locking levers (Figure 9 / note these features are properties of the system for the lever based lock seen in Figure 9), the pressing piece is rotatably disposed on an inner wall of the handle and an inner wall of the arm brace (Figure 9 / note the axle must be located “on” the walls and are “on” the arm brace by way of the handle), the pressing piece is in contact with and matched with the outer wall of the upper shaft (Figure 9), the cam locking lever is respectively rotatably connected to one side of the handle and one side of the arm brace through a positioning pin (see above figure), the cam locking lever is respectively in contact with and are matched with the pressing pieces (see above figure).
The only difference between the above Deng reference disclosure and the instant claim is that applicant uses two cam locking mechanisms instead of one cam locking mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that two cam locking mechanisms could be used instead of one to duplicate the number used, for many reasons, such as to provide a redundant backup locking mechanism, and to ensure that the associated components are extra secured against movement, in case one locking mechanism is insufficiently tight.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include duplicating the number of cam locking mechanisms to therefore include the two cam locking mechanisms include two pressing pieces and two cam locking levers, the two pressing pieces are respectively rotatably disposed on an inner wall of the handle and an inner wall of the arm brace, the two pressing pieces are in contact with and matched with the outer wall of the upper shaft, the two cam locking levers are respectively rotatably connected to one side of the handle and one side of the arm brace through positioning pins, the two cam locking levers are respectively in contact with and are matched with the two pressing pieces given the above disclosure and teaching of Deng in order to advantageously provide a redundant backup locking mechanism, and to ensure that the associated components are extra secured against movement, in case one locking mechanism is insufficiently tight (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Deng (Deng3) (US 2018/0252835) and Gall (US 2022/0206179).
As to Claim 10,
Deng discloses a positioning hole is defined on an inner wall of the handle (Figure 6 / note opening hole on either side of the tube 7), and a controller (control box) is disposed on an inner wall of the positioning hole (Paragraph [0003]), (Figure 9 / note the control box is positioned “on” the handle and thus on the hole), the handle comprises a grip at one side thereof (Figure 9).
Deng does not disclose the controller comprises a user operation interface, a loudspeaker, a headphone jack, a battery, a processor, an operation panel, and a port for connecting to the detection coil; the handle comprises a grip at one side thereof; and a strap and a probe rod positioning piece are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace.
Deng3 discloses the controller comprises a user operation interface (156), a loudspeaker (Paragraph [0024]), a headphone jack (Paragraph [0024]), a battery (484) (Paragraph [0087]), a processor (Paragraph [0098]), an operation panel (154) (Paragraph [0054]), and a port for connecting to the detection coil (Figure 3 / note the port cable 166 attaches to).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include the controller comprises a user operation interface, a loudspeaker, a headphone jack, a battery, a processor, an operation panel, and a port for connecting to the detection coil; the handle comprises a grip at one side thereof as taught by Deng3 in order to advantageously allow the metal detector device to function as intended, and allow a user to hear an indication of any detected metal, thus making it easier and faster to know if any metal is present, and be able to change the settings of the device to allow for different types of metal or sensitivity levels to be detected or implemented.
Gall discloses a strap (52) and a probe rod positioning piece (34) are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace (50,40) (Figures 3-6), (Paragraphs [0027],[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng in view of Deng3 to include a strap and a probe rod positioning piece are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace as taught by Gall in order to advantageously provide an adjustable cuff and strap configured to wrap around an operator's arm when in use (Paragraph [0027]), and to advantageously make it easier for a user to retain the metal detector in a desired position and be able to adjust that position to fit the comfort needs and size of the operator.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 10/001,590 (‘590) (reference application) in view of Deng (US 2024/0288606).
As to Claim 1,
‘590 discloses A metal detector, comprising: a detection coil (Claim 1); a telescopic assembly (Claim 1); rotation locking mechanisms (Claim 1 / cam locking mechanisms perform this function); a handle (Claim 1); and an arm brace (Claim 1); wherein the detection coil is rotatably connected to and lockable to a bottom portion the telescopic assembly (Claim 1), the rotation locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly (Claim 1), the arm brace are slidably disposed at an upper portion of the handle (Claim 1), the handle partially extends through an interior of the arm brace (Claim 1), and the arm brace are respectively locked to an outer wall of the telescopic assembly through a corresponding one of the cam locking mechanisms.
‘590 does not disclose the handle and the arm brace are slidably disposed at an upper portion of the telescopic assembly, the handle and the arm brace are respectively locked to an outer wall of the telescopic assembly through two cam locking mechanisms, the arm brace are respectively locked to an outer wall of the telescopic assembly through two cam locking mechanisms.
Deng discloses the handle and the arm brace is slidably disposed at an upper portion of the telescopic assembly (Paragraphs [0039]),(Figure 9 / note the handle extends into part of the elbow rest (arm brace) and where the elbow rest can be adjusted by losing the screw clearly shown in Figure 9), the handle partially extends through an interior of the arm brace (Figure 9), (see above figure), and the handle and the arm brace are locked to an outer wall of the handle through two cam locking mechanisms (see above figure), (Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘590 to include the handle and the arm brace are slidably disposed at an upper portion of the telescopic assembly, the handle and the arm brace are respectively locked to an outer wall of the telescopic assembly through two cam locking mechanisms, the arm brace are respectively locked to an outer wall of the telescopic assembly through two cam locking mechanisms as taught by Deng in order to advantageously allow for additional adjustments of position of the arm rest and handle to be made to allow for a desired amount of comfort, and to advantageously ensure that the component were sufficiently locked in place at their desired locations to prevent unwanted movement that can negatively affect comfort and use of the metal detector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2022/0283332 to Joy which discloses a metal detector including details of the manner in which the detection head attaches to a telescoping shaft, and 2) US 2017/0299756 to Weaver et al. which disclose a metal detector including details of the manner in which the detection head attaches to the telescoping shaft).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights