DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/203,697 filed May 9, 2025. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in parent application have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action. See MPEP § 609.02(II)(A)(2).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "514" and "516" have both been used in Fig. 31 to designate the second cam surface. The reference character 514 and the associated lead line directed toward the second cam surface should be deleted in order to be consistent with the specification in paragraph [00107] which describes the first cam surface 514 and second cam surface 516.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in lines 2 and 10 of paragraph [00107] “508” should be changed to --506--; and
in lines 3 and 4 of paragraph [00108] “first” should be deleted since there is only one cam member which is referred to elsewhere in paragraphs [00106]-[00111] as “cam member 500”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 line 4 “follower, first” should be changed to --follower, the first--; and
in claim 13 line 2 “having a” should be changed to –having an--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0307289 A1 (Blanchard).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchard discloses an actuation mechanism (see Fig. 1) comprising: a cam member (7) including a first cam surface (8A) and a second cam surface (8B); the second cam surface spaced from the first cam surface, a first cam follower (9A), the first cam follower following the first cam surface; a second cam follower (9B), the second cam follower following the second cam surface; a first link (radial flange portion of sleeve part 3A) between the first cam follower and a first coupling member (4A); and a second link (radial flange portion of sleeve part 3B) between the second cam follower and a second coupling member (4B).
Regarding claim 2, the first cam surface (8A) is a longitudinal cam surface varying in a direction parallel to a rotational axis of the cam member (7); and the second cam surface (8B) is a longitudinal cam surface varying in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the cam member (7).
Regarding claim 5, the first cam surface (8A) and the second cam surface (8B) are spaced longitudinally on the cam member (7).
Regarding claim 12, the first cam follower (9A) and the second cam follower (9B) move independently.
Regarding claim 13, Blanchard discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1) comprising: a cam member (7) rotatable about a rotational axis, the cam member having an end surface (either the end having cam 8A or the end having cam 8B) extending between an outer peripheral surface and an inner peripheral surface; the cam member having a first cam surface (8A) and a second cam surface (8B); the first cam surface having a cam profile (8A1, 8A2); the second cam surface having a cam profile (8B1, 8B2); a first cam follower (9A) following the cam profile of the first cam surface wherein the first cam follower moves between an extended position and a retracted position based on the cam profile of the first cam surface (see paragraph [0038] lines 18-29); and a second cam follower (9B) following the cam profile of the second cam surface, wherein the second cam follower moves between an extended position and a retracted position based on the cam profile of the second cam surface (see paragraph [0039] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, the first cam follower (9A) is connected to and moves a first locking element (4A), and the second cam follower (9B) is connected to and moves a second locking element (4B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,305,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the presently pending claims are fully encompassed by the patent claims.
Regarding presently pending claim 1, note that claim 1 of the ‘716 patent recites an actuation member including a cam member having first cam surface spaced from a second cam surface, a first cam follower following the first cam surface, a second cam follower following the second cam surface, a first link between the first cam follower and a first coupling member, and a second link between the second cam follower and a second coupling member.
Regarding presently pending claim 2, inasmuch as claim 1 of the ‘716 patent recites that the cam surfaces are on an end face of the cam member it can be inferred that the cam surfaces are longitudinal cam surfaces varying in a direction parallel to a rotational axis of the cam member.
The limitations of presently pending claims 1 and 2 are similarly included in or obvious in view of the system recited claims 16 and 17 of the ‘716 patent.
The limitations of presently pending claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are included in claims 15, 2, 8, 10, 14 and 15, respectively, of the ‘716 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 14-16 and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or render obvious an actuation device wherein: the second cam surface is a radial cam surface varying in a direction transverse to a rotational axis of the cam member as in claims 6 and 9; a groove in the outer peripheral surface of the cam member, a sidewall of the groove forming the second cam surface as in claim 14; a groove in the outer peripheral surface of the cam member, a base of the groove forming the second cam surface as in claim 15; the first and second grooves including the cam profiles of the first and second cam surfaces, respectively, as in claim 16; in combination with the other claim limitations.
Neither the Blanchard reference nor any of the other prior art discloses or renders obvious the cam member that moves the first and second cam followers to a second position wherein both the first and second cam followers are retracted in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 18. While this feature is included in claim 15 of Applicant’s ‘716 patent, the limitations of dependent claims 19-21 regarding the longitudinally spaced first and second cam surfaces are not included in the claims of the ‘716 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617