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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/11/26.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20, discloses “all plurality of engaging portions are disposed within a semi-circular region of the wheel”. The application as originally filed does not appear to provide written-description support for this limitation.
The specification describes engaging portions P1-P5 of the wheel as being arranged along an arc of a circle. However, disclosure of engaging portions arranged along an arc does not necessarily disclose that all of the engaging portions are disposed within a semi-circular region of the wheel, as presently claimed. An arc is not necessarily semicircular and may extend through an angular range greater than or less than 180 degrees. Thus, the disclosure of an arcuate arrangement does not establish that the engaging portions are confined to a single semicircular, i.e. half-circle, region of the wheel. Further, the wheel as originally filed in the drawings does not expressly identify or delineate a semicircular region within which all of engaging portions P1-P5 are disposed. Rather, the drawings depict P1-P5 distributed at different circumferential positions along the wheel. Thereby, the drawings do not clearly and necessarily convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that all P1-P5 are disposed within a single semicircular region of the wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed combination including the following features:
Regarding claim 1, it is the inclusion of “the lifter shaft has two guide surfaces that extend in a direction orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the lifter shaft and slidably hold the wheel, the lifter shaft has at least two force points where each of the two guide surfaces contacts the wheel when the lifter shaft transmits rotational power to the wheel, and a center of the at least two force points is located on an opposite side of the engaging portions provided on the wheel with respect to the axis of rotation.” in combination with the other claimed elements of the tool that are novel over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, it is the inclusion of “guide surfaces of a width-across-flats portion provided on the lifter shaft, and a biasing member” and “the wheel is slidably movable in a radial direction with respect to the lifter shaft along the guide surfaces, and the last engaging portion is disposed on the wheel such that the guide surfaces extend-5 Application No. 19/395,507 in a direction substantially orthogonal to the driving direction of the driver when the last engaging portion disengages from the last rack tooth” in combination with the other claimed elements of the tool that are novel over the prior art of record.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270 - 1926. 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights