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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 19 November 2025. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the insert being in a “radially contracted condition” as set forth in claims 1 and 14; the seat being “axially aligned with the hole” as set forth in claim 1; the insert being “radially contractile” as set forth in claims 1 and 14; the notch in the insert promoting “radial contraction” as set forth in claim 4; the head of the nipple having a “polygonal shape” as set forth in claim 11; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “so as” should be removed from line 25 of claim 1 and line 3 of claim 14, to removed generally narrative and indefinite language.
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.
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 1-17 and 19 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the rod “develops axially”.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the threaded hole is “formed axially” in the rod. No datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple. Furthermore, in the orientation shown in the drawings, the threaded hole extends radially through the rod (the threaded hole could also be considered to extend longitudinally through the rod).
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to pass”. This phrase fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the insert is “radially contracted” or “radially contractile”. Again, no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple. Furthermore, the insert is circumferentially contractile.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “intermediate axial position”. Again, no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the seat is “axially aligned with the hole”. Again, no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple. As previously discussed, in the orientation shown in the drawings, the threaded hole extends radially through the rod (the threaded hole could also be considered to extend longitudinally through the rod).
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “an intermediate axial position” in line 29 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “intermediate axial position” set forth in line 29 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 3 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “radial depth” and “axially retain”, given the fact that no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial or radial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple.
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “radial contraction”. Again, no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the notch extends “axially” between the opposite ends of the insert. Again, no datum point has been set forth in the claims to define the axial direction with respect to the body of the spoke nipple.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mantle” in claims 4, 8, and 14 is used by the claim to mean “body,” while the accepted meaning is “1a: a loose sleeveless garment worn over other clothes (i.e. cloak); 2a: something that covers, enfolds, or envelops.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 1-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the application is in condition for allowance. However, this is not the case, as set forth above.
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 JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615