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 .
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.
Examiner’s Remarks
The amended portions of the claims are typed with a color that is not black, which makes the claims difficult to read and print. Please only use black. 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.
Claims 37 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the fibre material of the fibre reinforced polymer material" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 37 was written to depend from claim 34, but perhaps Applicant intended for claim 37 to depend from claim 36 which introduced a fibre reinforced polymer material. Correction is required.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “pressing the one or more plugs through holes in the retainer” in the fourth line. The limitation as written is confusing and not in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings however, because it is written as if one plug can be pressed through multiple holes, since “one or more plugs” only requires one plug. Correction is required. This affects dependent claim 45.
Claim 46 recites the limitation “pressing the one or more plugs through holes in the retainer” in the fourth line. The limitation as written is confusing and not in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings however, because it is written as if one plug can be pressed through multiple holes, since “one or more plugs” only requires one plug. Correction is required. This affects dependent claims 47-48.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that a voicemail was left for Applicant’s representative on 2/13/2026 in an attempt to discuss a subsequent amendment to address the 112(b) rejections as detailed above, but there was no return phone call.
Claims 1-2, 4, 33-36, and 38-43 are allowed.
Claims 37 and 44-48 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If Applicant amends any of the claims in a way that changes the scope of the claim, allowability will be reconsidered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet.
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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671