DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to “movement mechanism’ (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and “motion mechanism” (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as “movement mechanism” and “motion mechanism”. The examiner suggests to amend the specification to recite “movement mechanism” from “motion mechanism” to be consistent with the specification and figure 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/805,211 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 are directed to ultrasound system with a control unit comprising a GUI with a display; a sealed housing comprising a fluid and a window; ultrasound element configured to focus ultrasound below a skin; a hand wand comprising a shaft, a motor, removable transducer module, communication interface, but U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 fail to explicitly sate that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the window. Zanelli discloses that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window in the invention of U.S. Application No. 18/805,211, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focusing of the ultrasound for better treatment.
Claims 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/805,211 in view of Zanelli et al. (US 2005/0154332; hereinafter Zanelli). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 are directed to ultrasound system with a control unit comprising a GUI with a display; ultrasound element configured to focus ultrasound below a skin; a hand wand comprising a shaft, a motor, and removable transducer module but U.S. Application No. 18/805,211 fail to explicitly sate that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the window. Zanelli discloses that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window (see par. [0024] and fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the ultrasonic treatment element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window in the invention of U.S. Application No. 18/805,211, as taught by Zanelli, to provide better focusing of the ultrasound for better treatment.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,676 are directed to ultrasound treatment device comprising a control unit comprising a processor, driver circuit, GUI with touch screen display, a hand wand comprising a motor, transducer module, a communication interface cable, a housing with acoustically transparent window, piezoelectric elements configured to focus ultrasound at a depth.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,676 are directed to ultrasound treatment device comprising a control unit comprising a processor, driver circuit, GUI with touch screen display, a hand wand comprising a motor, transducer module, a communication interface cable, piezoelectric elements configured to focus ultrasound at a depth.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to an ultrasound treatment system with a hand wand comprising transducer module, motor, housing with fluid, ultrasonic element, circuit board interface comprising a pin connector, and moving the ultrasonic element with the motor to direct ultrasonic treatment, but copending Application No. 19/025,353 fails to explicitly state a control unit with GUI comprising a touch screen display and detachable transducer module.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that control unit comprising a GUI with a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), detachable transducer module (see par. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146), as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more efficient Interaction, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module.
Claims 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and copending Application No. 19/025,353 are both directed to an ultrasound treatment system with a hand wand comprising transducer module, motor, housing with fluid, ultrasonic element configured to focus at a depth below a skin surface, circuit board interface comprising a pin connector, and moving the ultrasonic element with the motor to direct ultrasonic treatment, but copending Application No. 19/025,353 fails to explicitly state a control unit with GUI comprising a touch screen display and detachable transducer module.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that control unit comprising a GUI with a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), detachable transducer module (see par. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module, and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector in the invention of copending Application No. 19/025,353 in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146), as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more efficient Interaction, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12, the claim limitation “a depth” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if this depth is the same depth that is already recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt).
Regarding claim 1, Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: a graphical user interface (see par. [0025]), an input (see fig. 6), and an output (see fig. 6); a hand wand comprising: a shaft (see fig. 5), a motor (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), and a communication interface cable to facilitate communication between the hand wand and the control unit (see fig. 5); and a transducer module (see fig. 5) comprising: a housing comprising an acoustically transparent window (see par. [0023]; fig. 5); an ultrasonic piezoelectric element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface (see par. [0023]; 106 in fig. 5), wherein the ultrasonic treatment piezoelectric element is acoustically coupled to the acoustically transparent window in the housing (see par. [0023], fig. 5), and wherein the control unit (see par. [0012], [0014], [0023]) configured to move the ultrasonic piezoelectric element with the motor via the shaft to direct the ultrasonic treatment in thermal lesions in a tissue (see [0019], [0022], [0025]).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module, and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), detachable transducer module (see par. [0038]), and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module, and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more efficient Interaction, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module, and to provide electric communication with the pin connection.
Regarding claim 2, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the circuit board interface is configured for removable insertion and detachment with an integrated receptacle of the hand wand (see fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the circuit board interface is configured for removable insertion and detachment with an integrated receptacle of the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 3, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the integrated receptacle is configured for interchangeable attachment to a second detachable transducer module (see fig. 1-2), wherein the second transducer module comprises a second circuit board interface comprising a pin connector (see par. [0030], [0035], [0038], [0040], fig. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the integrated receptacle is configured for interchangeable attachment to a second detachable transducer module, wherein the second transducer module comprises a second circuit board interface comprising a pin connector in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 4, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the motor is configured to linearly move the ultrasonic element within the housing (see fig. 5), and Bockenstedt teaches wherein the integrated receptacle is configured for operable attachment to the motor (see par. [0037]; fig. 5A, 6A-B).
Regarding claim 5, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a magnetic coupling configured to move the ultrasonic element within the housing (see par. [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the integrated receptacle comprises a magnetic coupling configured to move the ultrasonic element within the housing in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 6, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the detachable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via a latch (see fig. 6A), which thereby permits a second detachable transducer module to interchangeably attach to the hand wand (see fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the detachable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via a latch, which thereby permits a second detachable transducer module to interchangeably attach to the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 7, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the control unit comprises a processor configured to execute software for controlling the ultrasonic element via the output (see fig. 6; par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the graphical user interface is configured for displaying treatment parameters (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the control unit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit configured deliver power to the detachable transducer module (see par. [0025] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Zanelli discloses an ultrasound treatment device. Zanelli shows a control unit (see par. [0025]) comprising: a graphical user interface comprising a display (see par. [0025]), a hand wand (see fig. 5) comprising: a shaft (see fig. 5), (see par. [0013], [0015], [0024]), and a communication interface cable to facilitate communication between the hand wand and the control unit (see fig. 5); and a transducer module (see fig. 4) comprising: an ultrasonic element configured to focus ultrasound at a depth below a skin surface (see par. [0023]; fig. 5), and wherein the control unit is configured to move the ultrasonic element with the motor via the shaft to direct the ultrasonic treatment in a tissue (see [0019], [0022], [0025]).
But, Zanelli fails to explicitly state that the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module, and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector.
Bockenstedt discloses a mechanical arm. Bockenstedt teaches that the user interface is a touch screen display (see par. [0056]), detachable transducer module (see par. [0038]), and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector (see par. [0041], [0048], [0049], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the GUI is touch screen, detachable transducer module, and circuit board interface comprising a pin connector in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to provide a better user interface by having a faster and more efficient Interaction, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module, and to provide electric communication with the pin connection.
Regarding claim 14, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the control unit comprises a processor configured to execute software for controlling the ultrasonic element (see fig. 6; par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the control unit comprises a radio frequency (RF) driver circuit configured deliver power to the detachable transducer module (see par. [0025] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the circuit board interface is configured for removable insertion and detachment with an integrated receptacle of the hand wand (see fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the circuit board interface is configured for removable insertion and detachment with an integrated receptacle of the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 17, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bockenstedt teaches wherein the detachable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via a latch (see fig. 6A), which thereby permits a second detachable transducer module to interchangeably attach to the hand wand (see fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the detachable transducer module is configured to detach from the hand wand via a latch, which thereby permits a second detachable transducer module to interchangeably attach to the hand wand in the invention of Zanelli, as taught by Bockenstedt, to be able to provide specific ultrasound module with specific treatment parameter for specific treatment with removable ultrasound transducer module and be able to easily switch between different transducer modules.
Regarding claim 20, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Zanelli shows wherein the graphical user interface is configured for displaying treatment parameters (see fig. 3 and par. [0025]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2005/0033201; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state a foot switch configured for controlling the ultrasonic element.
Takahashi discloses ultrasound surgical system and teaches state a foot switch electrically connected to the control unit configured for controlling the ultrasonic element (fig. and par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a foot switch configured for controlling the ultrasonic element in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Takahashi, to provide an easy way to control the ultrasound module while the physician can use both hands to perform treatment.
Claims 11-12 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zanelli et al. (US 2010/0228163; hereinafter), in view of Bockenstedt et al. (US 2009/0240146; hereinafter Bockenstedt) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gliklich et al. (US 2007/0032784; hereinafter Gliklich).
Regarding claims 11-12, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as and described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz, focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface, and and an acoustic power in range of 1 watt to 100 watts.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]), focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface (see par. [0031]), and an acoustic power in range of 1 watt to 100 watts (see par. [0016], [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz, focus ultrasound at depth in a range between 3 mm and 9 mm below the skin surface, and an acoustic power in range of 1 watt to 100 watts in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer for reducing signs of aging.
Regarding claim 19, Zanelli and Bockenstedt disclose the invention substantially as and described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state the treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz.
Gliklich discloses a targeted muscle ablation for reducing signs of aging and teaches treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz (see par. [0016], [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of treatment frequency in a range of 1 MHz to 10 MHz in the invention of Zanelli and Bockenstedt, as taught by Gliklich, to be able to safely treat layers beneath the dermal layer for reducing signs of aging.
Response to Arguments
The previous double patent rejections over U.S. Patent No. 10,537,304, U.S. Patent No. 11,123,039, U.S. Patent No. 11,723,622, U.S. Patent No. 12,102,473, and copending Application No. 19/025,251 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments to the clams.
The previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) for claim element "movement mechanism" has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment to claim 1. The examiner has maintained the previous object to specification the mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) is being referred to "movement mechanism' (see par. [0067] of the PG Pub. version of the specification) and "motion mechanism" (see par. [0070] of the Pg. Pub. version of the specification). Throughout the specification, the mechanism 400 for directing ultrasonic treatment being referred to as "movement mechanism" and "motion mechanism". The Applicant states on page 5 (see response filed on 04/20/2026) that claim 1 has been amended to remove the claim element "movement mechanism" which invoke 35 USC 112 (f) and therefore the specification objection should be withdrawn, however, the objection to specification was not related to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f) or claim objection. The objection to specification because the specification refers mechanism 400 (see fig. 6 and 7) as "movement mechanism' and "motion mechanism", and is not consistent through out the specification.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026, with respect to prior art rejection of independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Bockenstedt to address independent claims 1 and 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights