DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/07/2026.
The Examiner notes that the amendment does not comply with 37 CFR 1.121, which reads “Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application.” Claims 10-16 and 20 have been withdrawn, but the amendment does not include the text of the withdrawn claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has used the most recent text of the withdrawn claims from 03/12/2026 for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 17-19 and 21-22 are allowable. Claims 10-16 and 2, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between species and inventions, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/16/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 10-16 and 20 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 reads “the location”, --a location-- is suggested.
Claim 10 line 8 reads “an outer”, --the outer-- is suggested.
Claim 10 line 10 reads “an inner”, --the inner-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 10-16 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 20 recite the limitations “typically”, “preferably”, “optionally”, “in particular” and “for example”. It is unclear if the limitations following the above limitations are required or optional.
Claim 10 line 5 recites the limitation “a sleeve”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “an annular sleeve” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional sleeve.
Claim 10 line 5 recites the limitation “at least an inner surface of the annular structure”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “an inner annular surface of said annular sleeve” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional inner surface.
Claim 11 line 2 recites the limitation “an annular outer surface”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “an outer surface of said eccentric portion” recited in claim 10, or if this limitation requires an additional outer surface.
Claim 11 line 8 recites the limitation “a close fit”. It is unclear what is required to be “close”.
Claim 12 line 2 recites the limitation “an annular outer surface”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “an outer surface of said eccentric portion” recited in claim 10, “an annular outer surface” recited in claim 11, or if this limitation requires an additional annular surface.
Claim 12 line 3 recites the limitation “an annular inner surface”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “an inner annular surface of said annular sleeve” recited in claim 1, “an inner surface of the annular structure” recited in claim 10, or if this limitation requires an additional annular surface.
Claim 20 lines 13-14 recite the limitation “a desired operating speed”. It is unclear what is required to be a “desired” operating speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, allowed.
Claims 5, 10-16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Szczelina (US 10512916 B2), does not anticipate that “said coupling portion comprises an inner part and an outer part, the inner part comprising an offset shaft portion that has an offset axis that is parallel with said shaft axis, the outer part comprising an annular sleeve that is located around the offset shaft portion and is eccentric with respect to the offset axis, the annular sleeve being rotatable about the offset axis with respect to the offset shaft portion, and wherein an inner annular surface of said annular sleeve and an outer surface of said offset shaft portion are coupled to each other to allow both rotation of said annular sleeve and said offset shaft portion together about said shaft axis and rotation of said annular sleeve with respect to said offset shaft portion about said offset axis during operation of said material processing device” as recited in claim 1. The prior art of record does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify toward the entirety of applicant's claimed invention. Further, there was no cogent reasoning elsewhere available to one of ordinary skill that was unequivocally independent of improper hindsight of applicant's invention and that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant' s invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights