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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/619,681 (filed on 01/10/2024) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs that are mentioned in the description: 44 (in paragraph 0044), 40’ (in paragraphs 0044 and 0047), 40” (in paragraphs 0044 and 0047), 84 (in paragraph 0051), 114i’ (in paragraphs 0055 and 0058), and 144ii (in paragraph 0059). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters which are not mentioned in the description: 40i (in figure 5), 40ii (in figure 5), and 93’ (in figure 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in figure 8, the reference character “63” has been used to designate both the motor-mount tube and the bolts for the pillow block bearings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in figure 21, the reference character “144i” has been used to designate the base half collars of both distal collar 142i and 142ii. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In paragraph 0045, line 1, the phrase “the drive unit 30” should read -- the drive unit 10 --.
In paragraph 0051, line 2, the phrase “A driver sprocket 84” should read -- A driver sprocket 86 --.
In paragraph 0054, line 5, the phrase “the fixed hub shaft 94” should read -- the drum shaft 94 --.
In paragraph 0055, line 2, the phrase “the shaft 96” should read -- the drum shaft 94 --.
In paragraph 0056, line 7, the phrase “a sleeve body 106i” should read -- a sleeve body 106ii --.
In paragraph 0058, line 5, the phrase “a distal collar 142i and 140ii” should read -- a distal collar 142i and 142ii --.
In paragraph 0061, line 11, the phrase “arrow 99ii” should read -- arrow 99i --.
In paragraph 0062, line 9, the phrase “panels 68” should read -- panels 172i and 172ii --.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 1, line 1, the limitation “1. 1. A cable drive unit” should read -- 1. A cable drive unit --.
In claim 1, line 14-16, the limitation “moved outwardly of the opening of one of the longitudinal ends and…inwardly at the other one of the longitudinal ends for…the drum thereby” should read -- moved outwardly of the cable opening at one of the longitudinal ends of the housing and…inwardly of the cable opening at the other one of the longitudinal ends of the housing for…the drum, thereby --.
In claim 4, line 1, the limitation “wherein the carriage” should read -- wherein the support carriage --.
In claim 4, line 2, the limitation “a guide at one of the one of the longitudinal ends” should read -- a guide at one of the longitudinal ends --.
In claim 5, line 1, the limitation “wherein the carriage” should read -- wherein the support carriage --.
In claim 5, line 2, the limitation “a guide at one of the one of the longitudinal ends” should read -- a guide at one of the longitudinal ends --.
In claim 6, line 3, the limitation “with internal threaded surface” should read -- with the internal threaded surface --.
In claim 7, line 4, the limitation “the hub and sleeve assembly” should read -- the hub and sleeve structure --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: the actuation assembly in claims 1-2 and 10.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 5 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 the limitation “the support carriage” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 depends from claim 3. Subsequently, claim 5 is also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set for the above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-15 appears to be allowable over the discovered prior art, if they rewritten to appropriately address the above noted objection:
In regards to claim 1, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, a cable drive unit having the specific collective structure recited by independent claim 1. In particular, a cable drive unit comprising: a housing and a cable drive assembly mounted within the housing; the housing including opposite lateral sides, a first longitudinal ends with a first cable opening, and a second longitudinal end with a second cable opening; the cable drive assembly including a shaft that is fixedly mounted to the lateral sides of the housing, a drum that is rotatably mounted to the shaft about a hub and sleeve structure thereof, a cable that is simultaneously wound about or unwound from the drum, and an actuation assembly in operative communication with the drum for selectively imparting a rotational movement thereto; the hub and sleeve structure mechanically configured to laterally displace the drum along a length of the shaft, between the lateral sides of the housing as the drum rotated by the actuation assembly; wherein the rotation of the drum provides for unwinding the cable from the drum such that the cable move outwardly through the first cable opening at the firs longitudinal end, while simultaneously winding the cable onto the drum such that the cable move inwardly through the second cable opening at the second longitudinal end.
Berg (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0261205 A1) and Courtemanche et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0338310 A1), looks to be the closest related prior art to applicant’s claimed invention. Yet, Berg does not teach, both longitudinal ends of the housing in the cable drive unit defining a respective cable opening for the cable to travel through during winding/unwinding of the cable, the drum of the cable drive assembly in said cable drive unit being rotatably mounted on the shaft of the cable drive assembly via a hub and sleeve structure, such a hub and sleeve structure being configured to laterally/axially displace the drum along the shaft during the rotation of the drum via the actuation assembly of the cable drive assembly, or the cable moving outwardly through one cable opening at one longitudinal end of the housing when the cable is unwound from the drum and the cable simultaneously moving inwardly through the other cable opening at the other longitudinal end of the housing when the cable is wound onto the drum. Nevertheless, other examples in the prior art, such as Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0118208 A1), Labora (U.S. Patent 1,962,670 A), Hoffend (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0144851 A1), Ferguson (U.S. Patent 1,811,623 A), does propose a cable drive unit comprising a drum that is rotatably mounting on a shaft about a hub and sleeve structure, where the hub and sleeve structure mechanically interfacing with a length of the shaft for laterally/axially displacing the drum along the shaft as an actuation assembly rotates the drum about the shaft, thereby orderly winding a cable about the drum or minimizing the ballooning/overlapping of the wound cable segments. However, it would not have been conceivable to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotatably mount the drum in Berg’s cable drive unit on the shaft in the cable drive unit, using a hub and sleeve structure that mechanically interact with the shaft to laterally/axially displace the drum (i.e. when the drum is rotated via the actuation assembly) along a length of the shaft, as suggested by Kim et al, Labora, Hoffend, and Ferguson; that is because, Berg achieve the same cable winding effect (e.g. orderly winding of the cable about the drum, or minimizing the ballooning/overlapping of the wound cable segments) simply by orienting/mounting the drum at a canted/tilted angle defined between the direction of the cable and the central axis of the drum, without needing to displacing or reciprocating the drum along the shaft; therefore, configured said drum to move laterally/axially along said shaft via the action of a hub and sleeve structure, would require unnecessary and significantly complex modifications to the overall structural arrangement of the cable drive assembly in Berg’s cable drive unit, without yielding any tangible improvement to the structure, operative functionality, and/or the performance of said cable drive unit (in other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have lack sufficient motivation/rational to provide the cable drive assembly in the cable drive unit taught by Berg, with a hub and sleeve structure that mechanically interfaces with a length of the shaft to lateral displace the drum along the shaft during rotation of the drum). Moreover, only a single longitudinal end of the housing in Berg’s cable drive unit has a cable opening for the cable to travel through (e.g. inwardly and outwardly) when said cable is both wound onto and unwound from the drum. In addition, Courtemanche et al. also fails to reveal, a hub and sleeve structure being used to rotatably mount the drum of the cable drive unit on the shaft of said cable drive unit, wherein the hub and sleeve structure mechanically/operatively interface with a length of the shaft to laterally/axially displace the drum along the shaft (i.e. between the opposite lateral sides of the housing in said cable drive unit), when the drum is rotated by the actuation assembly of said cable drive unit. On the contrary, the entire housing and the cable drive assembly (which includes the shaft, the drum, the actuation assembly, and the cable) in Courtemanche’s cable drive unit, displaces latterly relative to and along a base frame of said cable drive unit, during the rotation of the drum in the cable drive assembly (in other words, the lateral movement of the drum relative to the shaft and the opposite lateral sides of the housing cannot occur, and the drum is axially fixed on relative to said shaft and said opposite lateral sides). Furthermore, all other applicable/analogues prior art of record identified by the examiner, neither disclose nor render obvious, a cable drive unit including a housing and a cable drive assembly, both of which has the precise features, the exact relative arrangement of components, and the specific operative/cooperative functionality of said components, that is described within claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-15 depends from claim 1; subsequently, claims 2, 4, and 6-15 also contain the allowable subject in parent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3 and 5 depends from claim 1; subsequently, claims 3 and 5 also contain the allowable subject in parent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights