FINAL REJECTION
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
On 2/17/2026, Applicant filed an amendment to the application which contains an amended claim set and remarks/arguments. The amendment to the application has been entered and considered for this Office Action.
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 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) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“geared mechanism” in claims 1 and 14
Placeholder: “mechanism”
Function: “angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member in a stepwise manner”
Insufficient structure for performing the claimed function: The only structural limitations related to the mechanism are (1) the term “geared” and (2) that the mechanism is housed in a housing positioned between the elongated member and the handle. These limitations, either alone or combined, do not appear to be sufficient enough to perform the claimed function of angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member particularly in a stepwise manner as recited in the claim. Regarding limitation (1) more specifically, the fact that an arbitrary mechanism is “geared” does not itself imply that said mechanism would necessarily provide for angular displacement (i.e., rotation) in a stepwise manner. For example, many geared mechanisms such as a differential in a car, a transmission (gear box) in a car, or a gear and chain of a bicycle, provide for continuous rotation (i.e., not stepwise rotation).
“limiting element” in claim 6
Placeholder: “element”
Function: “limiting” and “prevent a user from inserting the elongated member at a depth greater than appropriate”
Insufficient structure for performing the claimed function: Nothing in the claim structurally describes what the limiting element is. The claim only functionally describes what the limiting element does.
“element” in claim 8
Placeholder: “element”
Function: “prevent involuntary sliding of the ring-like member”
Insufficient structure for performing the claimed function: Nothing in the claim structurally describes what the element is. The claim only functionally describes what the element does.
“stabilizing element” in claim 13
Placeholder: “element”
Function: “stabilizing” and “keep a protective cover from accidentally sliding along the elongated member”
Insufficient structure for performing the claimed function: Nothing in the claim structurally describes what the stabilizing element is. The claim only functionally describes what the element does.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to claims 1 and 14, the geared mechanism as show in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5A, and described in pages 7-8 of the Specification have been identified as structure corresponding to the claimed function of “angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member”. Further, the Specification recites at page 11: “As will be appreciated by the skilled person, the embodiments described above are merely illustrative, and many modifications can be provided thereto. For instance, instead of a rough surface 217, a stepwise positioning element can be provided. Moreover, the rotation mechanism can be of many different types, allowing continuous movement (e.g., using friction-based elements) or stepwise movement, either purely mechanical or by an electric motor. The alternatives by which the purposes of the invention may be achieved are numerous, and the skilled person will easily devise viable alternatives to the ones described above for the purpose of illustration.” Although, the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand other embodiments besides the geared embodiment discussed above has been considered such as friction (sliding) based joints and other mechanical or electromechanical joints as functional equivalents, the claim appears to be limited to just the geared embodiment (by virtue of using the term “geared mechanism”); therefore, the non-geared embodiments discussed above are not considered within the scope of the claimed “geared mechanism” as recited in claims 1 and 14.
With regards to the functional limitation of angular displacement being more specifically in a “stepwise manner” as now recited in claims 1 and 14, the Specification discloses: “stepwise movement, either purely mechanical or by an electric motor” (Specification, page 11). In the purely mechanical case, Applicant has not disclosed structure of a mechanism (geared or otherwise) that provides angular displacement in a “stepwise manner” as claimed. Although the Applicant appears to disclose mechanical structures of the geared mechanism (Specification pages 7-8; Figs. 5 and 5A), these mechanical structures are not clearly linked to the claimed function of the stepwise angular displacement as recited in claims 1 and 14. For example, there is no discussion explaining how the geared mechanism disclosed in the Specification and Drawings would provide for stepwise angular displacement. Further, a mechanism doesn’t necessarily provide for stepwise angular displacement simply by virtue of being “geared”.
Regarding the “limiting element” of claim 6, a ring-shaped protrusion or a telescopic section are disclosed as structures corresponding to the claimed function of preventing a user from inserting the elongated member at a depth greater than appropriate (e.g., see Figs. 6-12 and associated descriptions in the Specification).
Regarding the “element” of claim 8, a roughed surface (e.g., of the elongated member) that creates friction between the ringlike member and the elongated member has been identified from the Specification as corresponding structure to the claimed function of “prevent[ing] the involuntary sliding of the ring”.
Regarding the “stabilizing element” of claim 13, a circumferential ridge or protrusion around the elongate member (see 220, Fig. 11) has been identified from the Specification as corresponding structure to the claimed function of “keep[ing] a protective cover from accidentally sliding along the elongated member”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b):
(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.
(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 1, 4, and 6-14 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 claims 1 and 14: The claim limitation “geared mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claims 1 and 14 recite in part “a geared mechanism suitable to angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member in a stepwise manner; wherein the angular displacement mechanism is housed in a housing positioned between the elongated member and the handle” (emphasis added).
The Specification describes details of an embodiment of the geared mechanism in Specification pages 7-8 and Figs. 5 and 5A.
The Specification does not make clear whether the aforementioned embodiment provides for stepwise angular displacements as recited in claims 1 and 14 (as opposed to providing for continuous angular displacements as recited in claim 3 which has now been canceled). For example, there is no discussion explaining how the geared mechanism disclosed in the Specification and Drawings would provide for stepwise angular displacement. Further, a mechanism doesn’t necessarily provide for stepwise angular displacement simply by virtue of being “geared”. For example, many geared mechanisms such as the differential or transmission of a car or a gear and chain or a bicycle provide angular displacement in a continuous (i.e., not stepwise) manner despite being geared. Therefore, the Specification does not clearly link the structure of the aforementioned embodiment to the claimed function of providing angular displacements in a stepwise manner.
The Specification does further recite in page 11 (emphasis added): “As will be appreciated by the skilled person, the embodiments described above are merely illustrative, and many modifications can be provided thereto. For instance, instead of a rough surface 217, a stepwise positioning element can be provided. Moreover, the rotation mechanism can be of many different types, allowing continuous movement (e.g., using friction-based elements) or stepwise movement, either purely mechanical or by an electric motor. The alternatives by which the purposes of the invention may be achieved are numerous, and the skilled person will easily devise viable alternatives to the ones described above for the purpose of illustration.” Although an electric motor is mentioned, the Specification does not give any example of structure in the “purely mechanical” case. In other words, the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the claim covers the purely mechanical case (as well as the electromechanical case such as an electric motor), but the Specification does not disclose any structural example of a purely mechanical geared mechanism that provides for stepwise angular displacements, or otherwise does not clearly make such link therebetween.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 4 and 6-13 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163 recites in part:
If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and "equivalents thereof." See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function."), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, "cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear." In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.
MPEP 2163.03 recite in part:
A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.
MPEP 2181 recites in part:
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). In Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the court stated:
Enablement of a device requires only the disclosure of sufficient information so that a person of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the device. A section 112[(f) or pre-AIA ] paragraph 6 disclosure, however, serves the very different purpose of limiting the scope of the claim to the particular structure disclosed, together with equivalents. … For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that ‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. The court in Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953[, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123] (Fed. Cir. 2007), put the point this way: "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure."
The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph … or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus-function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention.").
MPEP 2181 further recites in part:
The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The requirement that a particular structure be clearly linked with the claimed function in order to qualify as corresponding structure is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is also supported by the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211, 68 USPQ2d 1263, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if one of ordinary skill in the art cannot identify what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the written description of the specification perform the claimed function.
MPEP 2181 further recites in part:
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI. Examiners should further consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement of section 112(a). See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection III, and MPEP § 2164.08.
The Federal Circuit has recognized the problem of providing a sufficient disclosure for functional claiming, particularly with generic claim language, explaining that "The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli & Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Thus, the means- (or step-) plus- function claim must still be analyzed to determine whether there exists corresponding adequate support for such claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph support for the claim limitation, the examiner must consider whether the specification describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to establish that the inventor or joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as of the application's filing date. Additionally, any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claim as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. This enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1342, 94 USPQ2d at 1165. The enablement requirement serves a different purpose than the written description requirement in that it ensures that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. See MPEP § 2164. In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112 , para. 1 support for the claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. See In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 1299, 190 USPQ 536, 542–43 (CCPA 1976) (claims); In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1240, 176 USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973) (claims); Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 54 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (abstract); In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678–79, 185 USPQ 152, 153–54 (CCPA 1975) (abstract); Anderson, 471 F.2d at 1240, 176 USPQ at 333 (abstract); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (drawings); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 955–57, 133 USPQ 537, 541– 43 (CCPA 1962) (drawings).
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) provides, in part, that "the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." In the situation in which the written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to a means- (or step-) plus-function, and the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art would recognize what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function, the examiner should either: (A) have the applicant clarify the record by amending the written description such that it expressly recites what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the claim element; or (B) state on the record what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation. Even if the disclosure implicitly sets forth the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to a means- (or step-) plus-function claim element in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, the USPTO may still require the applicant to amend the specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) to explicitly state, with reference to the terms and phrases of the claim element, what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the claim element in a manner that does not add prohibited new matter to the specification. See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 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." (emphasis added)); see also B. Braun Medical, 124 F.3d at 1424, 43 USPQ2d at 1900 (holding that "pursuant to this provision [35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph], structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 112, paragraph 6."); Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1218, 68 USPQ2d 1263, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although one of skill in the art would have been able to write a software program for digital to digital conversion, such software did not fall within the scope of "means for converting" images as claimed because nothing in the specification or prosecution history clearly linked or associated such software with the function of converting images into a selected format.); Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d at 955, 133 USPQ at 542 (just because the disclosure provides support for a claim element does not mean that the USPTO cannot enforce its requirement that the terms and phrases used in the claims find clear support or antecedent basis in the written description).
To summarize the MPEP sections cited above, a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation under §112(f) that is found to be indefinite under §112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose or clearly link corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and therefore should also be rejected under §112(a).
As discussed above, claims 1, 4, and 6-14 have been rejected under §112(b) for failing to disclose or clearly link corresponding structure for the claimed function of the geared mechanism as recited in claims 1 and 14 (see rejection under §112(b) above).
The claims are therefore also rejected under §112(a) for the same reasoning (i.e., for failing to disclose or clearly link corresponding structure for the claimed function of the geared mechanism as recited in claims 1 and 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge, US 2023/0139828 A1 (hereinafter “Ridge”) in view of Krieger et al., US 2012/0203095 A1 (hereinafter “Krieger”) and YouTube video “Adjusting angular position of a lever 1” published 5/29/2015, uploaded by user “thang010146”, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9jWWiTxYQ on 3/3/2026 (hereinafter “YouTube”).
Regarding claim 1: Ridge discloses a device adapted to monitor the follicles (¶ [0011], [0056]) and to assess the thickness of the endometrium (¶ [0104]) of a subject, comprising:
a) an elongated member (“main body section 2” 102, Fig. 1) having a tip that houses an ultrasound probe (“piezo detector”/“piezo crystal array” 107, Fig. 1);
b) a handle (“handle section 2” 104, Fig. 1) adapted to be held in the hand of a subject; and
c) a mechanism (“handle joint” 108) suitable to angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member (e.g., see Fig. 5);
wherein said mechanism is housed in a housing (“handle section 1” 103 and “main body section 1” 101, Fig. 1) positioned between the elongated member and the handle.
Ridge does not disclose an indexing arrangement adapted to indicate a current angular displacement.
Krieger teaches an indexing arrangement (“rotation scale” 306, Fig. 3A) adapted to indicate a current angular displacement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mechanism of Ridge with an indexing arrangement adapted to indicate a current angular displacement, as taught by Krieger; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to more easily discern the angle between the elongated member and the handle.
Ridge does not disclose that the mechanism is a geared mechanism or that the angular displacement is in a stepwise manner.
In this sense Ridge as modified in view of the teachings of Krieger can be considered a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Initially, it is noted that the term “stepwise”, absent any special definition in the Specification, would be understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan within the context of this invention as meaning distinct or discrete as opposed to a continuous or on-going. In this sense angular displacement in a stepwise manner would be understood as displacements to discrete angular positions as opposed to displacement along a continuum of infinitely granular positions.
YouTube teaches a geared mechanism that is adapted for angular displacement in a stepwise manner as discussed herein: The geared mechanism is used as an angular joint between two elements (gray and green), each element having geared portions which engage one another. As shown in the animation, when the geared portions of the gray element and the green element are engaged, the angular position therebetween is locked in place. The red lever can be lifted which disengages the aforementioned geared portions allowing for angular displacement to a new angular position. The red lever can then be returned to its lowered position, re-engaging the geared portions to one another, thereby locking the gray and green element in said new angular position.
Due the rotationally symmetric nature the geared portions of the gray and green elements and how they particularly engage to lock the gray and green elements in angular positions, the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that there are only a limited number of discrete angular positions that the gray and green elements can be angularly displaced relative to one another and ultimately locked in. In this sense, the ordinarily skilled artisan would therefore understand or regard this mechanism as being suitable for angularly displacing the gray and green elements relative to one another in a stepwise manner because the mechanism provides for discrete angular positions.
The technique of YouTube is applicable to the base device of Ridge because Ridge teaches a mechanism for angularly displacing two elements relative to one another (in this case angularly displacing the handle relative to the elongated member as discussed above). In this sense, YouTube can be considered to teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device.
Applying the technique of the geared mechanism for stepwise angular displacement to the mechanism of the modified Ridge invention would have predictably resulted in providing for stepwise angular displacement the handle relative to the elongated member, and therefore would have resulted in the improvement of the claimed invention.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that a limited number of discrete angular positions (opposed to an infinite of positions on a continuum) of the aforementioned geared mechanism would improve reducibility of angular rotation by constraining angular displacement to the aforementioned discrete angular positions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ridge such that the mechanism is a geared mechanism and that the angular displacement of the handle relative to the elongated member is in a stepwise manner because it would have merely involved applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, which has been held by the Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) as one of a number of identified of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve reproducibility of angular rotation by constraining angular displacement to discrete angular positions.
Regarding claim 4: Ridge further discloses that the angle between the central axis of the elongated member and that of the handle can be changed between 0° and 180° (e.g., Fig. 5 illustrate approximately 120° which is between 0° and 180°).
Regarding claim 13: As discussed above, the stabilizing element is being construed in accordance with §112(f) as covering a circumferential protrusion or ridge on the elongated member. Ridge further discloses a stabilizing element adapted to keep a protective cover from accidentally sliding along the elongated member (“main body section 1” 101 includes a circumferential protrusion at the proximal end).
Claim 6-10 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge in view of Krieger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morokawa et al., US 2004/0249286 A1 (hereinafter “Morokawa”).
Regarding claims 6-10, Ridge in view of Krieger does not disclose a limiting element adapted to prevent a user from inserting the elongated member at a depth greater than appropriate (claim 6); wherein the limiting element comprises a ringlike member that can slide along the length of the elongated member (claim 7); an element adapted to prevent the involuntary sliding of the ring (claim 8); wherein the involuntary sliding of the ring is prevented by creating friction between the interior of the ring and the surface of the elongated member (claim 9); and a rough surface formed along a length of the elongated member (claim 10).
Morokawa teaches a limiting element (5, Figs. 4A and 4B) adapted to prevent a user from inserting the elongated member at a depth greater than appropriate; wherein the limiting element comprises a ringlike member (fixer 5, Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) that can slide along the length of the elongated member (2, Figs. 4A and 4B); an element adapted to prevent the involuntary sliding of the ring (2b, 3b, 3c, Figs. 5A and 5B); wherein the involuntary sliding of the ring is prevented by creating friction between the interior of the ring and the surface of the elongated member (via 2b, 3b, 3c, Figs. 5A and 5B); and a rough surface (2b, Figs. 5A and 5B) formed along a length of the elongated member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ridge such that the device further comprises disclose a limiting element adapted to prevent a user from inserting the elongated member at a depth greater than appropriate, wherein the limiting element comprises a ringlike member that can slide along the length of the elongated member; an element adapted to prevent the involuntary sliding of the ring, wherein the involuntary sliding of the ring is prevented by creating friction between the interior of the ring and the surface of the elongated member; and a rough surface formed along a length of the elongated member, as taught by Morokawa; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent over insertion of the elongated member in the patient with regards to depth of insertion.
Regarding claim 12: the limiting element of Morokawa as discussed above can be considered to read on a telescopic section of the elongated member because the elongated member extends in a telescopic manner as shown in Figs. 4A and 4B.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ridge such that the limiting element comprises a telescopic section of the elongated member, as taught by Morokawa; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the length of the insertable portion of the device (i.e., the elongated member) to thereby prevent over insertion of the elongated member in the patient with regards to depth of insertion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge in view of Krieger and Morokawa as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sverdlik et al., US 2021/0298812 A1 (hereinafter “Sverdlik”).
Regarding claim 11: Ridge does not disclose one or more rulers provided on the elongated member, said rulers comprising indicia indicative of a length.
Sverdlik teaches one or more rulers provided on an elongated member, said rulers comprising indicia indicative of a length (“In some embodiments, markings and/or a ruler on the surface of the applicator body 802, optionally close to the gripping member 806, provide indications regarding the depth and/or the orientation of the applicator body 802 within the vagina 810.” ¶ [0236]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Ridge such that the device further comprises one or more rulers provided on the elongated member, said rulers comprising indicia indicative of a length, as taught by Sverdlik; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide indications regarding the depth and/or the orientation of the device inserted within the body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger in view of YouTube.
Regarding claim 14: Ridge discloses a device, comprising:
a) an elongated member (“main body section 2” 102, Fig. 1) having a tip that houses an ultrasound probe (“piezo detector”/“piezo crystal array” 107, Fig. 1);
b) a handle (“handle section 2” 104, Fig. 1) adapted to be held in the hand of a subject; and
c) a mechanism (“handle joint” 108) suitable to angularly displace said handle relative to said elongated member (e.g., see Fig. 5);
wherein said mechanism is housed in a housing (“handle section 1” 103 and “main body section 1” 101, Fig. 1) positioned between the elongated member and the handle.
Ridge does not disclose that the mechanism is a geared mechanism or that the angular displacement is in a stepwise manner.
In this sense Ridge can be considered a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Initially, it is noted that the term “stepwise”, absent any special definition in the Specification, would be understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan within the context of this invention as meaning distinct or discrete as opposed to a continuous or on-going. In this sense angular displacement in a stepwise manner would be understood as displacements to discrete angular positions as opposed to displacement along a continuum of infinitely granular positions.
YouTube teaches a geared mechanism that is adapted for angular displacement in a stepwise manner as discussed herein: The geared mechanism is used as an angular joint between two elements (gray and green), each element having geared portions which engage one another. As shown in the animation, when the geared portions of the gray element and the green element are engaged, the angular position therebetween is locked in place. The red lever can be lifted which disengages the aforementioned geared portions allowing for angular displacement to a new angular position. The red lever can then be returned to its lowered position, re-engaging the geared portions to one another, thereby locking the gray and green element in said new angular position.
Due the rotationally symmetric nature the geared portions of the gray and green elements and how they particularly engage to lock the gray and green elements in angular positions, the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that there are only a limited number of discrete angular positions that the gray and green elements can be angularly displaced relative to one another and ultimately locked in. In this sense, the ordinarily skilled artisan would therefore understand or regard this mechanism as being suitable for angularly displacing the gray and green elements relative to one another in a stepwise manner because the mechanism provides for discrete angular positions.
The technique of YouTube is applicable to the base device of Ridge because Ridge teaches a mechanism for angularly displacing two elements relative to one another (in this case angularly displacing the handle relative to the elongated member as discussed above). In this sense, YouTube can be considered to teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device.
Applying the technique of the geared mechanism for stepwise angular displacement to the mechanism of Ridge would have predictably resulted in providing for stepwise angular displacement the handle relative to the elongated member, and therefore would have resulted in the improvement of the claimed invention.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that a limited number of discrete angular positions (opposed to an infinite of positions on a continuum) of the aforementioned geared mechanism would improve reducibility of angular rotation by constraining angular displacement to the aforementioned discrete angular positions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ridge such that the mechanism is a geared mechanism and that the angular displacement of the handle relative to the elongated member is in a stepwise manner because it would have merely involved applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, which has been held by the Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) as one of a number of identified of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve reproducibility of angular rotation by constraining angular displacement to discrete angular positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that any new grounds of rejection should properly be presented in a non-final Office action. In particular, applicant asserts that amendment does not necessitate new grounds of rejection because the amendments are either “purely formal” or “add features to independent claims that were previously presented in the original claim set.”
Examiner response: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The amendment does in fact present one or more feature(s) that was/were not previously presented in the claim set originally examined. For example, claim 1 has been amended to further include a new combination of the following limitations:
that the mechanism is a “geared mechanism”, and
that the angular displacement is in a “stepwise manner.”
This feature (i.e., the aforementioned combination) was not previously presented in the original examined claim set. For example, claim 2 (now canceled) recited stepwise angular displacements but not the geared mechanism; and claim 5 (now canceled) recited the geared mechanism but not the stepwise angular displacements. This new feature (i.e., the new combination) has necessitated new grounds of rejection of claim 1 presented above which is based on Ridge and Krieger as well as the newly cited YouTube reference which teaches the new feature (i.e., the new combination of a geared mechanism and stepwise angular displacement).
Furthermore, newly added claim 14 is directed to a new (sub)combination of limitations that has not been previously presented (i.e., adding the aforementioned new combination of the geared mechanism and the stepwise angular displacement while also deleting the limitation of the indexing arrangement). The introduction of new claim 14 has therefore necessitated new grounds of rejection of claim 14 based on Ridge and the YouTube reference.
The aforementioned amendments further necessitate new grounds of rejection of claims 1 and 14 under §112(b) and 112(a) as discussed above. Further, when considering dependent claims thereof, new grounds of rejection of the dependent claims (e.g., rejections of claims 4 and 6-14 under §112(b) and 112(a), etc.) are therefore clearly necessitated by the amendment too.
Applicant argues that the structure of a mechanism that is “adapted to perform stepwise angular displacement” is disclosed in the specification. Applicant asserts that the portions of the specification referred to at pages 7-8 of the specification (which describes Figs. 5 5A) related to toothed gears that are understood by those of the ordinary skill in the art to inherently work in a stepwise fashion. In particular, Applicant asserts that the statement in the specification that “teeth 208 and 208' engage teeth 207 and 207', and the device is ready to be rigidly rotated around the axis of plug 205, by the limited movement of teeth 208 and 208' against teeth 207 and 207'” clearly describes stepwise angular displacement despite the word stepwise not being used therein.
Examiner response: This argument is not found to be persuasive. Initially, it is noted that the term “stepwise”, absent any special definition in the Specification, would be understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan within the context of this invention as an adverb meaning in a series of distinct/discrete steps as opposed to a continuous or on-going step. In this sense angular displacement in a stepwise manner would be understood as a series of discrete displacements to discrete angular positions as opposed to continuous displacement to an infinite number of positions. Applicant appears to make the argument that working a stepwise fashion is somehow inherent in toothed gears, but this is simply not true. For starters, the examiner can think of several examples off the top of his head of toothed gears that do not inherently work in a stepwise fashion (on the contrary, they work in a continuous fashion) such as the differential in a car, the transmission (gear box) of a car, or the gears and chain of a bicycle. Otherwise, Applicant provides no explanation in their remarks/arguments (or the Specification itself) how teeth 208 and 208’ engaging teeth 207 and 207’ would necessarily provide for angular displacement (i.e., rotation) in a stepwise manner opposed to a continuous manner.
Applicant’s argument against the §112(b) rejection is on the basis of Applicant’s position being that the phrasing of amended claim 1 makes it clear that the gears contribute to the stepwise angular displacement.
Examiner response: This argument is not found to be persuasive. As already discussed above, it is not clear that the gears contribute to stepwise angular displacement because gears themselves do not necessarily/inherently provide for stepwise angular displacement. But, more importantly:
A limitation interpreted under §112(f) is construed as encompassing the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification/Drawings and equivalents thereof. If the Specification/Drawings do not disclose corresponding structure, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention because it would be unclear what structures (and equivalents thereof) the claim limitation in question is intended to encompass, and therefore should be rejected under §112(b). See MPEP 2181.
In this case, the Specification describes that stepwise angular displacement can be provided via a purely mechanical means or via an electric motor (“the rotation mechanism can be of many different types, allowing continuous movement (e.g., using friction-based elements) or stepwise movement, either purely mechanical or by an electric motor”, Specification page 11). Therefore, the claim limitation can be considered to encompass a purely mechanical means (as well an electric motor); however, in the case of the purely mechanical means, the Specification/Drawings do not disclose any corresponding structure (i.e., structure that corresponds to the claimed function) or otherwise do not clearly link the claimed function to any particular structure of the invention. As discussed above, Applicant alleges a connection between the teeth 208 and 208’ and teeth 207 and 207’ (and more specification engagement therebetween) and the claimed function of stepwise angular displacement, but does not explain how engagement of teeth 208 and 208’ with teeth 207 and 207’ would necessarily/inherently provide for stepwise angular displacement in either their remarks/arguments on the Specification/Drawings itself. In the purely mechanical case, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation in question.
Applicant’s argument against the §112(a) rejection is on the basis that it is Applicants position that Specification pages 7 and 8 and Figs. 5 and 5A for the amended claim 1.
Examiner response: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The embodiment of the geared mechanism described in Specification pages 7 and 8 and Figs. 5 and 5A is not disclosed in the Specification/Drawings as providing for stepwise angular displacement. Further, Applicant provides no explanation or reasoning (either in their remarks/arguments or the Specification itself) as to how said embodiment would necessarily provide for stepwise angular displacement.
A limitation interpreted under §112(f) that is rejected under §112(b) because the Specification/Drawings do not disclose corresponding structure (i.e., structure corresponding to the claimed function) should also be rejected under 112(a). See MPEP 2181 and 2163.
Although the Specification appears to provide support in the case of the electric motor embodiment, the Specification makes clear that the claimed function may also be achieved by purely mechanical means too; however, the Specification does not provide adequate support for in the case of the purely mechanical means. In other words, not all embodiments encompassed by the claim limitation in question are supported by the Specification/Drawings. The claim limitation also encompasses the purely mechanical means of providing stepwise angular displacement, but the Specification/Drawings do not disclose any structure corresponding thereto (or otherwise do not provide a clear link therebetween) as discussed above.
Applicant argues against the §103 rejections on the basis that it is Applicant’s position that neither Ridge nor Krieger teaches a geared mechanism and stepwise angular displacement as recited in claims 1 and 14.
Examiner’s response: This argument is not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the claims (e.g., claims 1 and 14) has necessitated new grounds of rejection as discussed above. The new grounds of rejection further rely on the YouTube reference for teaching the aforementioned new feature (i.e., the new combination of the geared mechanism and the stepwise angular displacement). Therefore, the claims are still rejected under §103.
Applicant does not provide any additional arguments for the dependent claims beyond the aforementioned arguments for claim 1 (i.e., Applicant’s arguments of the dependent claims rely on the aforementioned argument for claim 1). Since the argument for claim 1 is not persuasive, the dependent claims remain rejected too.
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 COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-4958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific.
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, KEITH M. RAYMOND can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
COLIN T. SAKAMOTO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3798
/COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
4 March 2026