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.
Claims 1-20 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 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.
Regarding claim 1, “an actuator arm movable from a first position to a second position to cause at least part of the wrap spring to increase in diameter” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not disclose “an actuator arm” capable of performing the claimed function. The specification and drawings do not describe “an actuator arm”.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, “a spring actuator” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification does not disclose “a spring actuator” capable of performing the claimed function. The specification and drawings do not describe “a spring actuator”.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-14, and 16-20, claims 2-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the frictional engagement” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the frictional engagement” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, “the second teeth” and “the first teeth” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, “the second teeth” and “the first teeth” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 2-12, 14, and 17-20, claims 2-12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-20 are currently free from prior art, however a subsequent prior art rejection may be made in view of Applicant’s amendments submitted to overcome the above 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the frictional engagement” is not indefinite and should not be rejected under 35 USC 112(b), Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not positively recited “a frictional engagement” and therefore “the frictional engagement” lacks antecedent basis. Applicant asserts that because the claim recites “the wrap spring frictionally engages the contact partner”, “the frictional engagement” is not indefinite. However, reciting the functional language of “frictionally engages” does not support and make definite a claimed element of “the frictional engagement”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the first teeth” and “the second teeth” are not indefinite and should not be rejected under 35 USC 112(b), Examiner disagrees. Applicant positively recites “multiple first teeth” and “multiple second teeth”. It is unclear if “the first teeth” and “the second teeth” include all of “multiple first teeth” and “multiple second teeth” or only some of “multiple first teeth” and “multiple second teeth”, thus rendering “the first second teeth” and “the second teeth” indefinite. The scope of the claim limitations “the first second teeth” and “the second teeth” is unclear. To ensure definiteness, consistency, and clarity, subsequent recitations of “multiple first teeth” and “multiple second teeth” should be “the multiple first teeth” and “the multiple second teeth”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights