DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 in response to Office Action 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but are moot since the allowable matter below is involved.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line third from last “an lower side” should read “a lower side”.
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 1, 4-10 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 1, page 3 both second and fourth to last lines “the remaining other portion side” lacks antecedent basis. Removing “side” would rectify this and align with the amendment of the element as on the preceding page.
Claims 4-10 and 12 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter/REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1, 4-10 and 12 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior art, and examiner did not find references to teach all the limitations particularly as follows:
Claim 1: The limitation “the first stepped portion… faces toward the remaining other portion in the circumferential direction” (page 2 indent 3) and “upper and lower second stepped portions extend from the first stepped portion toward the remaining other portion in the circumferential direction” (page 2 indent 4) has sufficiently narrowed the scope of the claim.
Since the first stepped portion (of the shallow groove) facing towards the remaining other portion (direction) also in the circumferential direction is not taught, none of the references anticipate the claimed subject matter (full analysis in previous Office Action 1/9/2026).
For illustration purposes, Figures 1 & 3 of the examined disclosure shows a first stepped portion 41 facing away from the shallow groove 26 toward the remaining other portion, which is different than the prior art Sasaki (OA p 10, figure EAFS1) which teaches the first stepped portion facing inward once modified/placed into primary prior art Comper’s upper peripheral groove, as analyzed, so not facing toward the remaining other portion. In other words, the prior art faces oppositely to the claimed direction.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight, since the function (i.e. reinforcing first stepped portion of the shallow groove) was achieved without the same particular structure (i.e. facing toward the remaining other portion) of the examined invention.
Claims 4-10 and 12 would be allowed as depending from an allowed parent claim (details above).
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights