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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because components are not sufficiently labeled in the drawings. For example, while the “blocking assembly 3” is labeled in Fig. 1, it is not labeled in other drawings and other views. Furthermore, while some of the components of the blocking assembly (e.g. outer shell 31, protrusion 32, elastic member 33) are labeled in some drawings (e.g. Fig. 2), they are not labeled in many other drawings and importantly are not labeled in any other views (such as the view of Fig. 1). It is therefore unclear which component(s) of the blocking assembly 3 shown in Fig. 1 correspond to any of the claimed outer shell, protrusion, and/or elastic member.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-7 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.
The term “a first rotation position” and “a second rotation position” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not specify relative to what that first and second rotation positions of the rotation shaft are determined. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, it will be assumed the first and second rotation positions of the rotation shaft are relative to the housing on which the rotation shaft is installed.
The term “a first translation position” and “a second translation position” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not specify relative to what that first and second translation positions of the rotation shaft are determined. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, it will be assumed the first and second translation positions of the rotation shaft are relative to the housing on which the rotation shaft is installed.
According to MPEP § 2173.03, “a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 1 recites “a blocking assembly, pivotally coupled to the rotation shaft and being capable of switching between a first posture and a second posture with respect to the housing.” While claim 1 recites that the first and second postures of the blocking assembly are with respect to the housing, the claim does not specify whether the first and second postures require both rotational position and translational position relative to the housing, or only rotational/pivotal position. In other words, can the blocking assembly be in the same first posture (or same second posture) even if the blocking assembly is translated relative to the housing while maintaining the same rotational position relative to the housing?
The specification describes Figs. 1 and 2 as showing the 2nd rotation position and 1st translation position, with the blocking assembly in the 1st posture. However, the specification also describes the Figs. 5 and 6 as showing as showing the 2nd rotation position and 1st translation position, with the blocking assembly in an “intermediate posture.” A careful comparison of Figs. 1 and 2 to Figs. 5 and 6 appear to show the rotation shaft in both a different rotation position and different translation position, contrary to the description in the specification (See at least paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0019]-[0020]). This conflict between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claims uncertain.
Claim 1 recites “wherein when the blocking assembly is in the first posture” and “wherein when the blocking assembly is in the second posture”. It is unclear whether the phrase “wherein when” means wherein at least some of the time when, or means wherein whenever, i.e. in all instances of when the blocking assembly is in the first posture and in all instances of when the blocking assembly is in the second posture. In other words, it is unclear whether the “when” in each instance is functioning to describe what is considered the first posture and what is considered the second posture, or whether the “when” is describing what takes place some of the time, but not necessarily all of the time, when the blocking assembly is in the first posture, and likewise for the second posture.
Dependent claims 5 recites “when”, and it is unclear whether the “when” means wherein at least some of the time when, or means wherein whenever. This contrasts with claim 7, which recites the phrase “so that when”, where the “when” in the context of “so that when” functions as a whenever or functions as an “if” statement (with the following “the gap between […] the first posture” functioning as the respective, implicit “then” statement).
Claim 4 recites “so that” in line 5 and in line 7, respectively. For each of these “so that” phrases, it is unclear what is precisely the claimed cause and what is the claimed effect. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the effect triggered by the second “so that” recited in line 7 must occur after and perhaps because of the effect of the “so that” recited in line 5.
Likewise claim 5 recites “so that” in line 3, in line 4, and in line 5, respectively. For each of these “so that” phrases, it is unclear what is precisely the claimed cause and what is the claimed effect. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the effect triggered by the second “so that” recited in line 4 must occur after and perhaps because of the effect of the “so that” recited in line 3, and whether the effect triggered by the second “so that” recited in line 5 must occur after and perhaps because of the effect of the “so that” recited in line 4.
Claim 4 recites “so that the elastic member is further compressed, after the rotation shaft rotates to the first rotation position, the elastic member is in a second compressed state.” It is grammatically unclear whether what is being claimed to occur “after the rotation shaft rotates to the first rotation position” is the elastic member being further compressed or is the elastic member being in a second compressed state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi (US2023/0268148).
Shi discloses:
Re claim 1. A rotation shaft structure, which is characterized in that, the rotation shaft structure comprises:
a rotation shaft (14), rotatably installed on a housing (See Fig. 9) and being capable of rotating between a first rotation position and a second rotation position (para. [0043]), and further configured to be capable of translating between a first translation position and a second translation position in a direction along a rotation axis of the rotation shaft (para. [0049]);
a blocking assembly (30, 11), pivotally coupled to the rotation shaft (14) and being capable of switching between a first posture and a second posture with respect to the housing; and
a cooperative blocking member (20), fixed on the housing (See Fig. 9),
wherein when the blocking assembly (30, 11) is in the first posture, the cooperative blocking member (20) is out of a translation path of the rotation shaft (14) from the first translation position to the second translation position, thereby allowing the rotation shaft to translate to the second translation position,
when the blocking assembly (30, 11) is in the second posture, the cooperative blocking member (20) is in the translation path of the rotation shaft (14) from the first translation position to the second translation position, thereby blocking the rotation shaft from translating to the second translation position (See para. [0055]-[0056]).
Re claim 6. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 1, which is characterized in that the cooperative blocking member (20) is in a form of a wall (See Figs. 1-5).
Re claim 7. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 6, which is characterized in that the wall (20) comprises a first wall and a second wall (See Fig. 4, wall 20 can be considered divided between two halves, for example one half on the left side of Fig. 4 that can be considered a first wall and one half on the right side of Fig. 4 that can be considered a second wall), the first wall and the second wall are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotation shaft, so that when the rotation shaft (14) is translated from the first translation position to the second translation position, a gap (21) between the first wall and the second wall accommodates the blocking assembly (30, 11) in the first posture.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blayney (US266,601).
Re claim 1
A rotation shaft structure, which is characterized in that, the rotation shaft structure comprises:
a rotation shaft (C), rotatably installed on a housing (A) and being capable of rotating between a first rotation position and a second rotation position, and further configured to be capable of translating between a first translation position and a second translation position in a direction along a rotation axis of the rotation shaft (See Figs. 1-3);
a blocking assembly (D), pivotally coupled to the rotation shaft and being capable of switching between a first posture and a second posture with respect to the housing (A); and
a cooperative blocking member (B), fixed on the housing,
wherein when the blocking assembly (D) is in the first posture, the cooperative blocking member (B) is out of a translation path of the rotation shaft (C) from the first translation position to the second translation position, thereby allowing the rotation shaft (C) to translate to the second translation position,
when the blocking assembly is in the second posture, the cooperative blocking member (B) is in the translation path of the rotation shaft (C) from the first translation position to the second translation position, thereby blocking the rotation shaft from translating to the second translation position.
Re claim 6. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 1, which is characterized in that the cooperative blocking member (B) is in a form of a wall.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US2023/0268148) in view of Tang (EP3413328, cited by Applicant).
Re claim 2
Shi discloses all claim dependency limitations, see above, but does not disclose the blocking assembly comprises an outer shell, a protrusion protruding inward from an inner wall of the outer shell, and an elastic member, wherein the outer shell is sleeved on the rotation shaft, and the elastic member is arranged between an insertion part of the rotation shaft inserted into the outer shell and one side of the protrusion.
Tang teaches the blocking assembly comprises an outer shell (3), a protrusion (302a) protruding inward from an inner wall of the outer shell, and an elastic member (4), wherein the outer shell is sleeved on the rotation shaft (5), and the elastic member (4) is arranged between an insertion part of the rotation shaft inserted into the outer shell and one side of the protrusion (para. [0018]), for the purpose of position locking (para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Shi such that the blocking assembly comprises an outer shell, a protrusion protruding inward from an inner wall of the outer shell, and an elastic member, wherein the outer shell is sleeved on the rotation shaft, and the elastic member is arranged between an insertion part of the rotation shaft inserted into the outer shell and one side of the protrusion, as taught by Tang, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of position locking.
Shi as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 3. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 2, which is characterized in that, at the second rotation position of the rotation shaft, the blocking assembly is in the first posture, and the elastic member (4 in Tang) is compressed between the insertion part of the rotation shaft and the protrusion in a first compressed state (See para. [0014]-[0020] in Tang).
Re claim 4. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 3, which is characterized in that, after the rotation shaft is translated from the first translation position to the second translation position, the rotation shaft rotates in a predetermined direction by a predetermined angle during a rotation of the rotation shaft from the second rotation position towards the first rotation position in the predetermined direction, so that the outer shell of the blocking assembly abuts against the cooperative blocking member, with a further rotation of the rotation shaft, the insertion part of the rotation shaft rotates relative to the protrusion, so that the elastic member (4 in Tang) is further compressed, after the rotation shaft rotates to the first rotation position, the elastic member is in a second compressed state (See para. [0014]-[0020] in Tang).
Re claim 5. The rotation shaft structure according to claim 4, which is characterized in that when the rotation shaft rotates to the first rotation position, the rotation shaft can be translated back to the first translation position from the second translation position, so that the blocking assembly is out of abutment with the cooperative blocking member, so that the elastic member (4 in Tang) is released from the second compressed state to the first compressed state, so that the blocking assembly is in the second posture (See para. [0014]-[0020] in Tang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reiter (US5,609,244) discloses an interlock device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights