Detailed Action
General Information
The applicant’s amendment filed March 31, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered into the record. The amended specification filed March 31, 2026 overcome the objection and the objection is withdrawn. 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).
Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The claim is FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the amendments to the drawings are not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for:
a) The removal of weld from various portions of the claim.
b) Changing the shape and proportion of fasteners such as nuts and bolts.
c) Changing the proportions of the bent threaded rod.
e) Changing the shape of the welded-on washers.
f) Changing the number of washers.
g) Removing the thickness from the tubing the slotted hole is cut into.
h) Changing the angle of the rear bolt and adjustment centerlines from perpendicular to obtuse angled.
It appears that some of these differences may be due to the process of converting from photos to line images based off of the photos. Several shapes appear to have been changed to more basic or approximate shapes. In the initially filed reproductions the bolt discussed in “h” seemed to be angled because of lens distortion from the camera. This distortion appears to have been maintained in the line drawings making areas obtusely angled where they were understood to be as discussed above. This is most notable in Fig. 1.4 where the bolt and handle appear distinctly angled. See below for annotated reproductions of the original and replacement reproductions. These are not exhaustive of all the areas the issues above exist but should be sufficiently provide examples.
PNG
media_image1.png
1381
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1383
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1380
997
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1378
997
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To overcome this refusal, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or amend the drawings to reflect the original disclosure while maintaining the required consistency between the figures to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Another possibility is filing a continuation-in-part using the replacement drawings amended to overcome the issues described above.
Conclusion
The claim stands FINALLY refused under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
A response is required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any reply to this Office action must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33 (b).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP § 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Benjamin.Wannemacher@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP §502.03 II for further information.
Responses to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center (Registered eFilers only)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN D. WANNEMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-9568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM–5:00PM 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, Justin M. Jonaitis can be reached at (571) 270-5150. 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.
/B.D.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2918
/JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Prosecution Insights