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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species (i), a first species, depicted in Figures 1-4, in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected with traverse, asserting the following:
Applicant respectfully asserts that examination of the claims would neither require a serious search nor impose an undue examination burden on the Examiner.
However, this is not persuasive.
MPEP section 808 states:
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required…
Applicant has argued that part (B) (i.e., burden) has not been shown. That said, regarding part (B), note that MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that
Where the * inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof : This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together : Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search : Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, C was established, noting that the restriction requirement mailed October 3, 2025, in paragraph 4 thereof, noted that, at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to search both groups.
Thus, burden has been properly established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 26, 2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the specification does not provide literal antecedent basis for the following terms:
“first end of the main body” in claims 1 and 12;
“first ends” in claim 1 (“a pair of opposing pawls extending into the receiving portion at first ends…”);
“second end of the main body” in claims 1 and 12;
“second end” (of the pair of opposing pawls) in claims 1 and 13;
“first and second contact surfaces” as set forth in claims 3 and 14;
“first contact surface” as set forth in claim 4;
“second contact surface” as set forth in claim 5;
“second pair of contact surfaces” in claim 6;
“lever end” in claim 12;
“locking end” in claim 12; and
“the first end” in claims 3 and 14.
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(s) is/are:
“release mechanism” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) 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.
It is noted that the term “release mechanism” in claim 16 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given the recitation of sufficient structure (pair of levers) to perform the recited function. (Similarly, it is noted that the term “release mechanism” in claim 1 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), given the recitation of sufficient structure to perform the function.)
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 1-6 and 12-20 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.
In claim 1¸ line 1, the claim recites “[A] chuck for a rotary driver comprising”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “comprising” the elements of lines 2-13 of the claim, i.e., a “chuck”, or “a rotary driver”. If, as it appears, the claim intends to set forth that the chuck comprises the elements of lines 2-13, Applicant may wish to consider language such as --[A] chuck for a rotary driver, the chuck comprising:-- for clarity. The same situation exists in claim 12, line 1, re the language “[A] lockable chuck for a rotary driver comprising:”. Likewise, if, as it appears, claim 12 is intended to set forth that the lockable chuck comprises the elements of lines 2-14 of claim 12, Applicant may wish to consider language such as --[A] lockable chuck for a rotary driver, the chuck comprising:--.
In each of claim 1, line 3, and claim 12, line 3, the claim sets forth “a flange at a first end of the main body for engaging with a source of torque”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “for engaging with a source of torque”, e.g., the main body, a first end of the main body, or the flange. In the event that the claim intends for the limitation “for engaging with a source of torque” to go with the “main body”, then it is noted that the limitation “the main body for engaging with a source of torque” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim as no main body that is, specifically, “for engaging with a source of torque” was previously set forth.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, the claim sets forth “a receiving portion at an opposing second end of the main body having a series of repeating indentations dimensioned to receive a driving ring of a foundation component”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “having a series of repeating indentations…”, i.e., the “opposing second end of the main body”, or the “receiving portion”. (As a side note, as best understood, it appears that the nonce limitation “receiving portion” intends to uninvoke 35 USC 112(f) via the structural recitation of the series of repeating indentations that are “dimensioned to receive” a driving ring of a foundation component. That said, the limitation “receiving portion”, which uses the non-specific structural term “portion” coupled with the functional language “receiving”, is not being treated as invoking 35 USC 112(f).)
In claim 1, line 6, the claim sets forth “first ends”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what the first ends belong, e.g., first ends of what? For example, it is unclear as claimed whether the first ends belong to, collectively, the “pair” of opposing pawls, whether the first ends belong to the receiving portion, whether the claim intends for each pawl of the “pair” of pawls to have a respective first end, or whether the first ends are of something else (i.e., un-named in the claim) entirely.
In claim 1, line 7, noting the use of the indefinite article “a”, it is unclear as claimed whether “a foundation component” is intended to be the same as, or different from, the “foundation component” previously mentioned in line 5 of claim 1. Likewise, in claim 1, in each of line 8, and lines 9-10, it is unclear as claimed whether “a foundation component” is intended to be the same as, or different from, the “foundation component” (or plural foundation components) previously mentioned in any prior recitation in the claim (e.g., for line 8, it is unclear whether “a foundation component” is intended to be the same as, or different from, the foundation component of line 5, is intended to be the same as, or different from, the foundation component of line 7, and so forth).
The term “substantially larger” in claim 1, line 9 (in the limitation “wherein the pawls are configured to resist displacement with a first force when a foundation component is loaded and resist displacement with a second force that is substantially larger than the first force when a foundation component is removed”) and in claim 19, line 3 (in the limitation “wherein the pawls are configured to resist displacement with a first force when a foundation component is loaded and resist displacement with a second force that is substantially larger than the first force when a foundation component is removed”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as claimed how much larger the second force must be (as compared to the first force) in order to be considered to be “substantially larger” than the first force. Furthermore, it is unclear what degree or amount(s) of the second force that are larger than the first force would be excluded by the limitation, i.e., how much larger than the first force must a given second force be to meet vs. be excluded by the limitation “substantially larger”. It is noted that as disclosed in paragraph 0004 of the specification as filed, the specification teaches that “various embodiments of the present invention provide a chuck for a rotary anchor that enables an anchor to be loaded with relatively low force, holds the anchor with a far greater amount of force, and yet can release the anchor with a relative low force if required”. Paragraph 0021 of the specification as filed teaches (for the elected species of Figures 1-4) “[A]s the teeth of driving ring 12 contact surface 123 of each pawl, if sufficient force is provided (e.g., 25-35 pounds), pawls 122 will push outward, pivoting about pins 128 passing through main body 105 as upper contact surface 119 pushes against springs 125, compressing them into the body”, teaches “[T]he less steep angle of surfaces 124 means that when downward force is applied to the screw anchor, the direction of the force by the teeth against surfaces 124 is less aligned with the direction of displacement that must occur to release the pawls as compared to the orientation of the forces when loading” and “[T]his requires much greater force (e.g., 300+ pounds to release) downward force to release the foundation component”, and also teaches “[I]f, however, an operator pushes one of levers 130 compressing it up toward flange 121, far less force need be applied to release anchor from the pawls (e.g., 20-30 pounds)” and “[C]urved contact surfaces 133 of the cam gradually engage upper end 119 of cam 122 thereby compressing springs 125 so that the pawls will displace, and the foundation component will simply fall away under the force of gravity”. That being said, note that none of these teachings serve to provide a clear teaching of a standard to be used for determining what is meant by “substantially larger”. Even the numeric values that are provided are set forth as merely exemplary (noting the use of the verbiage “e.g.,”), such that it is unclear whether those values are the only values that would provide such a standard, or whether other values (and if so, what values) would provide such a standard for determining the requisite degree. Furthermore, even the numeric values themselves are unclear in that it is unclear if it is the specific delta (e.g., the specific value of the difference between the forces) that provides the requisite degree, vs. whether the value of “substantially larger” would need to be determined as a percentage difference, for example. Additionally, the teachings mentioned above from the specification are contradictory, noting that the specification teaches that the anchor can be both loaded and unloaded with “relatively low force” (paragraph 0004), and provides example ranges of the release force (“e.g., 20-30 pounds”, paragraph 0021) that include forces that are higher than some of the forces in an example loading force (“e.g., 25-35 pounds”, paragraph 0021), but not much higher (or at least not much higher as compared to another example range of “e.g., 300+ pounds” for the release force that is set forth in paragraph 0021). For example, a release force of 30 pounds is only one pound higher than a loading force of 29 pounds, both of which (i.e., 30 pounds, 29 pounds) are within some of the example ranges taught in paragraph 0021.
In claim 1, last three lines, the claim sets forth “a release mechanism comprising a pair of levers that move a second end of the pair of opposing pawls to release the foundation component with a force substantially smaller than the second force when one of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange”. However, it is unclear how many second ends the pair of levers (collectively) move, i.e., one (pawl) second end that belongs (collectively) to the pair of opposing pawls (i.e., one second end, total), or a respective (pawl) second end of each pawl of the pair of opposing pawls (for a total of two second ends).
In claim 1, penultimate line, the limitation “the foundation component” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that it is unclear which specific previously-recited foundation component is intended to be referenced (i.e., the foundation component in line 5, the foundation component in line 7, the foundation component in line 8, the foundation component in lines 9-10, etc.).
In claim 1, the claim uses the term “when” to describe certain functions, e.g., “when a foundation component is loaded into the receiving portion”, “when a foundation component is loaded”, “when a foundation component is removed”, and “when one of the pairs of levers is compressed towards the flange”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether these limitations are intended to refer to a time period of when the action is actively happening, vs. whether these limitations are instead intended to refer to a time period of when the action has (already) happened. For example, for the limitation “when a foundation component is loaded into the receiving portion”, it is unclear as claimed whether such intends to refer to a time period during which a foundation component is actively being loaded/inserted into the receiving portion, or whether such instead intends to refer to a time period when the foundation component has (already) been inserted/loaded. The same situation also applies to the limitation “when they are displaced” in claim 2, “when one lever of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange” in claim 6, “when they are displaced” in claim 13, “when one lever of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange” in claim 18, “when a foundation component is loaded” in claim 19, and “when a foundation component is removed” in claim 19.
The term “substantially smaller” in claim 1, penultimate line (in the limitation “a release mechanism comprising a pair of levers that move a second end of the pair of opposing pawls to release the foundation component with a force substantially smaller than the second force when one of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially smaller” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as claimed how much smaller the release force (to release the foundation component via the release mechanism) must be (as compared to the second force) in order to be considered to be “substantially smaller” than the second force. Furthermore, it is unclear what degree or amount(s) of the aforedescribed release force (to release the foundation component via the release mechanism) that is/are smaller than the second force would be excluded by the limitation, i.e., how much smaller than the second force must a given (aforedescribed) release force be to meet vs. be excluded by the limitation “substantially smaller”. It is noted that as disclosed in paragraph 0004 of the specification as filed, the specification teaches that “various embodiments of the present invention provide a chuck for a rotary anchor that enables an anchor to be loaded with relatively low force, holds the anchor with a far greater amount of force, and yet can release the anchor with a relative low force if required”. Paragraph 0021 of the specification as filed teaches (for the elected species of Figures 1-4) “[A]s the teeth of driving ring 12 contact surface 123 of each pawl, if sufficient force is provided (e.g., 25-35 pounds), pawls 122 will push outward, pivoting about pins 128 passing through main body 105 as upper contact surface 119 pushes against springs 125, compressing them into the body”, teaches “[T]he less steep angle of surfaces 124 means that when downward force is applied to the screw anchor, the direction of the force by the teeth against surfaces 124 is less aligned with the direction of displacement that must occur to release the pawls as compared to the orientation of the forces when loading” and “[T]his requires much greater force (e.g., 300+ pounds to release) downward force to release the foundation component”, and also teaches “[I]f, however, an operator pushes one of levers 130 compressing it up toward flange 121, far less force need be applied to release anchor from the pawls (e.g., 20-30 pounds)” and “[C]urved contact surfaces 133 of the cam gradually engage upper end 119 of cam 122 thereby compressing springs 125 so that the pawls will displace, and the foundation component will simply fall away under the force of gravity”. That being said, note that none of these teachings serve to provide a clear teaching of a standard to be used for determining what is meant by “substantially smaller”. Even the numeric values that are provided are set forth as merely exemplary (noting the use of the verbiage “e.g.,”), such that it is unclear whether those values are the only values that would provide such a standard, or whether other values (and if so, what values) would provide such a standard for determining the requisite degree. Furthermore, even the numeric values themselves are unclear in that it is unclear if it is the specific delta (e.g., the specific value of the difference between the forces) that provides the requisite degree, vs. whether the value of “substantially smaller” would need to be determined as a percentage difference, for example.
Claim 2 sets forth “a pair of springs in the main body that are compressed by a second end of the opposing pawls when they are displaced”. However, again, noting the clarity issues described above (re claim 1) as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is unclear as claimed in claim 2 whether the claim intends (as it literally says) that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) compresses two springs, or whether the claim instead intends to require that a respective second end of each of the opposing pawls compresses a respective spring of the pair of springs. Note that the former requires one second end to compress two springs, whereas the latter requires two second ends, each of which compresses a respective spring. It is additionally unclear in claim 2 (noting the use of the indefinite article “a”) whether “a second end” in claim 2 is intended to be the same as, or is instead is intended to be additional to, the “second end” previously set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, in claim 2, it is unclear as claimed to what “they” is intended to refer, i.e., the opposing pawls, the springs, plural second ends, etc.
In claim 3, the limitation “the first end” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim, noting that plural first ends were previously recited (and it is also noted that the plural first ends that were previously recited in claim 1, line 6 were not previously clearly recited as belonging to the pawls).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first contact surface" in line 1, as does claim 15, line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that it appears that claims 3 and 14 previously set forth plural first contact surfaces (rendering it unclear which specific “first contact surface” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the first contact surface”).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pawl" in line 2, as does claim 15, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that plural pawls were previously recited.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second contact surface" in lines 2-3, as does claim 15, line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that it appears that claim 3 previously set forth plural first contact surfaces (rendering it unclear which specific “second contact surface” is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the second contact surface”).
In claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the first contact surface is oriented to be relatively more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the pawl than the second contact surface”. However, in the limitation “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the pawl than the second contact surface”, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to mean “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the pawl than” (to) “the second contact surface”, or whether such is instead intended to mean “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the pawl than the second contact surface” (is).
The term “relatively more orthogonal” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively more orthogonal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as claimed how much “more” orthogonal something must be to be considered to be “relatively” more orthogonal, and how little “more” orthogonal something must be in order to be excluded by the term.
Claim 5 sets forth “a cam that is rotated by displacement of either lever of the pair of levers, the cam engaging the second end of the pair of pawls”. However, again, noting the clarity issues described above (re claim 1) as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is unclear as claimed in claim 5 whether the claim intends that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) is engaged by the cam, or whether the claim instead intends that the cam engages both of the second ends of the pawls of the pair of pawls.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “the cam further comprising a second pair of contact surfaces…”. However, noting that no “first pair of contact surfaces” were previously recited, it is unclear as claimed how many contact surfaces (and specifically, how many pairs of contact surfaces) are required in order to meet the claim, i.e., one (the expressly recited “second pair of contact surfaces”), or two (the expressly recited “second pair of contact surfaces”, as well as a “first” pair of contact surfaces implicit via the use of the term “second pair of contact surfaces”).
In claim 6, the claim recites “the cam further comprising a second pair of contact surfaces that engage the second end of the opposing pawls when one lever of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange”. However, again, noting the clarity issues described above (re claims 1 and 5) as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is unclear as claimed in claim 6 whether the claim intends that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) is engaged by the recited second pair of contact surfaces, or whether the claim instead intends that the second pair of contact surfaces engages both of the second ends of the pawls of the pair of pawls. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed in claim 6 whether the claim intends that both contact surfaces (of the recited second pair of contact surfaces) collectively engage the (or both) second ends, or whether the claim intends that each contact surface of the recited second pair of contact surfaces engages a respective second (pawl) end, i.e., it is unclear how many (and which) surfaces must engage how many second ends in order for the claim language to be met.
Furthermore, given the lack of clarity described above as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is noted that the limitation “the second end” (re the pawls) set forth in each of claims 5 and 6 lacks sufficient antecedent basis in each of these claims.
In claim 12, the claim sets forth “a pair of opposing pawls, each of the opposing pawls having: a lever end; a locking end…”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many lever ends and locking ends are intended to be required, i.e., each of the opposing pawls having a respective lever end (for a total of two lever ends) and having a respective locking end (for a total of two locking ends), vs. each of the opposing pawls having (collectively/shared) a (one) lever end and a (one) locking end.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lever end" in each of lines 9, 10, 11, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that it is unclear whether the claim previously set forth plural lever ends (“a pair of opposing pawls, each of the opposing pawls having: a lever end”).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the locking end" in each of lines 9 and 10, and claim 15 likewise recites the limitation “the locking end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), noting that it is unclear whether the claim previously set forth plural locking ends (“a pair of opposing pawls, each of the opposing pawls having: …a locking end”).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the unlocked position" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), noting that it is unclear whether the claim previously set forth plural unlocked positions (in the limitation “the lever end is in an unlocked position”, noting that it is also unclear how many lever ends were intended to be recited, as noted above).
Claim 13 sets forth “a pair of springs in the main body that are compressed by a second end of the opposing pawls when they are displaced”. Firstly, noting that no “first end” or “first ends” of the “opposing pawls” was/were previously recited, it is unclear as claimed how many ends of the pawls are intended to be referenced, i.e., one (a second end) as claim 13 literally recites, two (the expressly recited second end, as well as the first end implicit via the use of the term “first”), four (two second ends, one second end for each pawl of the pair), eight (two second ends, one second end for each pawl of the pair, plus two first ends, one first end for each pawl of the pair), or some other number or permutation re first and second ends and the pair of pawls.
Additionally regarding claim 13, noting the aforedescribed clarity issues described above (re claim 13) as to how many second ends (and what configuration that/those would take) are intended to be recited, it is unclear as claimed in claim 13 whether the claim intends (as it literally says) that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) compresses two springs, or whether the claim instead intends to require that a respective second end of each of the opposing pawls compresses a respective spring of the pair of springs. Note that the former requires one second end to compress two springs, whereas the latter requires two second ends, each of which compresses a respective spring.
Additionally, in claim 13, it is unclear as claimed to what “they” is intended to refer, i.e., the opposing pawls, the springs, plural second ends, etc.
In claim 14, the limitation “the first end” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the locking end of the pawl" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that it is unclear whether plural locking ends were previously set forth (in claim 12).
In claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the first contact surface is oriented to be relatively more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the locking end of the pawl than the second contact surface”. However, in the limitation “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the locking end of the pawl than the second contact surface”, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to mean “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the locking end of the pawl than” (to) “the second contact surface”, or whether such is instead intended to mean “more orthogonal to a direction of displacement of the locking end of the pawl than the second contact surface” (is).
The term “relatively more orthogonal” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively more orthogonal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as claimed how much “more” orthogonal something must be to be considered to be “relatively” more orthogonal, and how little “more” orthogonal something must be in order to be excluded by the term.
Claim 17 sets forth “a cam that is rotated by displacement of either lever of the pair of levers, the cam engaging the second end of the pair of pawls”. However, firstly, it is noted that the limitation “the second end of the pair of pawls” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that no such “second end” was previously recited. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed in claim 17 whether the claim intends that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) is engaged by the cam, or whether the claim instead intends that the cam engages both of the second ends of the pawls of the pair of pawls (i.e., that each pawl has a respective second end, and that both such second ends are engaged by the cam).
In claim 18, the claim sets forth “the cam further comprising a second pair of contact surfaces…”. However, noting that no “first pair of contact surfaces” was/were previously recited, it is unclear as claimed how many contact surfaces (and specifically, how many pairs of contact surfaces) are required in order to meet the claim, i.e., one (the expressly recited “second pair of contact surfaces”), or two (the expressly recited “second pair of contact surfaces”, as well as a “first” pair of contact surfaces implicit via the use of the term “second pair of contact surfaces”).
In claim 18, the claim recites “the cam further comprising a second pair of contact surfaces that engage the second end of the opposing pawls when one lever of the pair of levers is compressed towards the flange”. However, again, noting the clarity issues described above (re claims 17) as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is unclear as claimed in claim 18 whether the claim intends that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) is engaged by the recited second pair of contact surfaces, or whether the claim instead intends that the second pair of contact surfaces engages two second ends (one respective second pawl end per pawl of the pair of pawls). Additionally, it is unclear as claimed in claim 18 whether the claim intends that both contact surfaces (of the recited second pair of contact surfaces) collectively engage the (or both) second ends, or whether the claim intends that each contact surface of the recited second pair of contact surfaces engages a respective second (pawl) end, i.e., it is unclear how many (and which) surfaces must engage how many second ends in order for the claim language to be met.
Furthermore, given the lack of clarity described above as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, it is noted that the limitation “the second end” (re the pawls) set forth in claim 18 lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 19, noting the use of the indefinite article “a”, it is unclear as claimed whether “a foundation component” (plural occurrences in claim 19) is intended to be the same as, or different from, the “foundation component” previously mentioned in lines 5-6 of claim 12, and it is likewise unclear as claimed whether “a foundation component” in line 3 of claim 19 is the same as, or is instead additional to, the “foundation component” previously set forth in line 2 of claim 19.
In claim 20, the claim recites “wherein each of the pair of pawls further comprises a spring configured to urge the pawl into the locked position”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends to require that each pawl of the pair of pawls comprises a respective spring (and thus the claim requires a minimum of two springs in order to be met), or whether the claim instead intends to require that each pawl (or possibly each pair of pawls) collectively (i.e., in a shared fashion) comprises a spring (and thus the claim requires a minimum of one spring in order to be met).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the pawl" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (noting that plural pawls were previously recited).
In claim 20, in the limitation “each of the pair of pawls”, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to reference “each” pair of pawls, of whether such is instead intended to reference “each” pawl of the pair of pawls.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 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.
Each of claims 2 and 13 sets forth “a pair of springs in the main body that are compressed by a second end of the opposing pawls when they are displaced”. It is noted that claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above due to a lack of clarity, noting the clarity issues described (re claims 1 and 13) as to how many second ends are intended to be recited, and noting that it is unclear as claimed in claims 2 and 13 whether the claim intends (as it literally says) that (one) second end (collectively belonging to the “pair of opposing pawls”) compresses two springs, or whether the claim instead intends to require that a respective second end of each of the opposing pawls compresses a respective spring of the pair of springs. Note that the former requires one second end to compress two springs, whereas the latter requires two second ends, each of which compresses a respective spring. Additionally, in claims 2 and 13, as noted above in a separate rejection, it is unclear as claimed to what “they” is intended to refer, i.e., the opposing pawls, the springs, plural second ends, etc.
That being said, as literally recited in claims 2 and 13, two springs (i.e., “a pair of springs”) “are compressed by a second end” (i.e., one second end) “of the opposing pawls when they are displaced”. However, the specification as filed does not appear to teach that one second end (119) of the opposing pawls (122, 122) compresses two springs 125, 125 (as opposed to one second end 119 of one pawl 122 compressing one spring 125, and another second end 119 of another pawl 122 compressing another spring 125). See Figures 1-4 and paragraph 0021 re claims 2 and 13, and additionally see Figures 5-8 and paragraph 0023 re claim 13. That being said, the specification as filed does not teach “a pair of springs in the main body that are compressed by a second end of the opposing pawls when they are displaced” (as set forth in claim 2) in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b), would be allowable if rewritten or amended, without broadening in any way, 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.
Claims 3-6 and 14-20, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b), would be allowable if rewritten, without broadening in any way, 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.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 2 and 13, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claims 2 and 13 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
March 19, 2026