DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Letters C and D in claims 1 and 2 are not in parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2, 4, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1, recites “has clearance angle” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --has a clearance angle--.
Claim 4, line 3, recites “the connecting member” which should be changed to --the connecting member of the metal pin-- to make it clear exactly which connecting member the Applicant is referring to.
Claim 8, line 14, recites “the metal shaft” which should be changed to --the metal pin-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metal axis" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the Applicant trying to refer to --an axial centerline of the metal pin--?
Claim 7, lines 2-3, recites “the guiding system is molded and optimized according to a lattice structure” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the guiding system is being optimized. What exactly is being optimized? How is the guiding system viewed as being optimized? How does the lattice structure result in an optimized guiding system?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "its metal axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Exactly what axis is the Applicant trying to refer to? Is the Applicant trying to refer to an axial centerline of the metal pin?
Claim 9, lines 2-3, recites “in which the step of machining the metal axis comprises a step of angular clearance of less than 5 degrees” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant is trying to claim. What is a step of angular clearance? The claim limitation is not written as a step. Furthermore, what structure is the angular clearance a part of?
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 10-2021985 B1; see provided machine translation) in view of Kim (WO 2007/073041 A1) and in further view of Haller (US 2012/0224913 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a hybrid metal/plastic spring-loaded connecting rod having two ends and comprising:
a connecting rod guiding system (182, 183a) including a pin (183a) and a body (182) sliding over a zone (a zone around the outer circumference of 183a) along the pin;
a compression spring (184) oriented in the direction of the pin of the guiding system (see Figures 5 and 6), and two connecting members (182a, 183b) each positioned at one of the ends of the spring-loaded connecting rod on the sliding body and the pin respectively, the connecting members having a linking interface (the recessed part of 183b, and the recessed part of 182a as shown in Figure 6);
wherein in that the connecting members each comprise a shoulder (the end of 182a and 183b that 184 directly contacts as shown in Figure 5) perpendicular to the direction of an axial centerline of the pin, the compression spring being positioned in contact with these shoulders and around the guiding system (see Figure 5).
Yang does not disclose that the pin is made of metal.
Haller teaches a pin (8) that is made of metal (in light of MPEP 608.02(IX), the hatching of 8 is metallic in design therefore 8 is viewed as being made of metal).
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 pin of Yang to be made of metal, as taught by Haller, for the purpose of providing a pin that is resistant to bending forces and has good wear resistance.
Yang does not disclose that the sliding body and the connecting members are molded from plastic material.
Kim teaches a sliding body (10) and connecting members (the structure that 14 and 24 are formed in) that are made from plastic material (see Paragraph 19) for the purpose of preventing corrosion (see Paragraph 22).
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 sliding body and the connecting members of Yang to be made of a plastic material for the purpose of preventing corrosion, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture. The “molded” limitation is viewed as a product-by-process limitation, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Yang does not explicitly disclose that the connecting member of the sliding body being molded in one piece with the sliding body of the guiding system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting member of the sliding body be molded in one piece with the sliding body of the guiding system, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Forming 182 as a one-piece element would provide a stronger connection between 182a and 182b thus aiding in preventing the separation of 182a from 182b.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses that the metal pin has clearance angle (183a is viewed as being circular thus is viewed as having a clearance angle of 0°) over the sliding zone.
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses that the clearance angle is less than 5° (183a is viewed as being circular thus is viewed as having a clearance angle of 0° thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses that the linking interface of the connecting member is open in a “U” shape (see the outer end of 182 and 183 in Figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 5, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Devillez et al. (US 2025/0377031 A1) discloses a connecting rod assembly that is comprised of two connecting members that are biased by a compression spring, and each of the two connecting members has a linking interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
