DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Application Title
The application is titled “Axial Reinforcement Filament Application MethodologyNE100” in the image file wrapper. Please consider correcting the title to remove what appears to be a typographical error at the end of the title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. There does not appear to be any further limitation recited by the following dependent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 2, this feature is already recited in claim 1, lines 11-12, and therefore the claim is not further limiting.
As to claim 9, this feature is already recited by the combination of claims 1 and 8, and therefore the claim is not further limiting.
As to claim 14, this feature is already recited by the combination of claims 1, 12, and 13, and therefore the claim is not further limiting.
Although the Examiner has attempted to identify all 35 U.S.C. 112(d) issues, Applicant should also review the claims to identify any other instances of dependent claims that recite redundant features that fail to further limit claim 1.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 34-37 are pending, but withdrawn. It is unclear from the response whether Applicant seeks rejoinder or cancellation of these claims. It is noted that claim 34 is not a complete method since it contains no method steps for manufacturing a tubular cannular structure, and “providing a MOF” is not itself a step of manufacturing. Claim 34 therefore presents a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness issue even if rejoinder were requested.
There appear to be other 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with these claims. For instance, claim 35, lines 3-4 recites “the fixed end” and “the cantilevered end”, but these terms lack antecedent basis in claim 1. Claims 36 and 37 use the same phrasing and lack antecedent basis for the same reasons. The claims have not been reviewed in detail, but a comprehensive review for consistency would be necessary before rejoinder.
In the event that rejoinder is not requested, then Applicant may wish to cancel the withdrawn claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15-33, 38, and 39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Reasons for allowance of claim 3 were presented on page 4 of the previous office action and now apply to claim 1 after amendment. In light of the most pertinent prior art (Kennedy, US 3,328,224), it would not have been obvious to reconfigure the Kennedy device to provide the one or more spools located upstream of a supported end of the Kennedy forming mandrel.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742