DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB (Dewhirst).
Regarding claim 8, Dewhirst discloses a composite rod and fitting assembly (See Figures 1-4), the assembly comprising:
a fitting (see “Ferrule” in Figures 2 and 4) defining a passage of a form having a relatively large diameter section and a smaller diameter section (see “section through ferrule with variable inner taper” in Figure 2), and
a composite material rod (see “composite rod” in Figures 2 and 4), an end part of which is located within the passage, at least the end part of the rod is one of (a) a solid form rod being provided with a bore or passage having a pre-drilled end part (see Figure 4, where the “Insert” is provided in said bore/passage), and (b) a solid rod of hollow tubular form comprising the bore or passage having a pre-formed end part having an inner diameter, the end part of the rod being of expanded diameter (see Figure 4), a retainer (see “Insert” in Figures 2 and 4) located within the bore or passage, and retaining the end part of the rod in its expanded condition, the end part of the rod being compressed, thereby pre-stressed, between the retainer and an adjacent part of the fitting (see page 2, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 12, Dewhirst discloses the rod (see “composite rod” in Figures 2 and 4) is of solid form, and the bore (see Figure 4, where the “Insert” is provided in said bore/passage) is drilled or otherwise formed in the end part thereof (see page 1, final paragraph which extends on to page 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewhirst in view of US 2016/0102694 (Gernentz).
Dewhirst discloses adhesive (see page 2, fourth paragraph) is located within the bore (see Figure 4, where the “Insert” is provided in said bore/passage), filling the bore and voids between the retainer (see “Insert” in Figure 4) and the end part of the rod (see “composite rod” in Figures 2 and 4), but does not expressly disclose the adhesive being cured resin.
Gernentz teaches it is known in the art of securing fittings to rods to choose a cured resin as an adhesive depending upon the intended application of the rod (see paragraphs [0028]-[0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Dewhirst, such that the adhesive is a cured resin, as Gernentz teaches it is known in the art of securing fittings to rods to choose a cured resin as an adhesive depending upon the intended application of the rod.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewhirst in view of US 10,132,343 (Hale).
Regarding claim 10, Dewhirst discloses the assembly according to Claim 8, but does not expressly disclose the fitting (see “Ferrule” in Figures 2 and 4) is of metallic form.
Hale teaches a fitting (2) being of metallic form in order to provide a fitting that is not too brittle, but allows for reasonable elongated before failure (see column 3, lines 19-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fitting of Dewhirst to be of metallic form, as taught in Hale, in order to provide a fitting that is not too brittle, but allows for reasonable elongated before failure.
Regarding claim 11, Dewhirst discloses the assembly according to Claim 8, but does not
expressly disclose the retainer (see “Insert” in Figures 2 and 4) is of metallic form.
Hale teaches a retainer (3) being of metallic form in order to provide a retainer that possesses resistance to small, incidental compressive forces (see column 3, lines 44-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retainer of Dewhirst to be of metallic form, as taught in Hale, in order to provide a retainer that possesses resistance to small, incidental compressive forces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 15-20, and 24 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1-7 and 15-17, Applicant’s arguments filed May 22, 2026, see page 7, are persuasive. The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest, a method for securing a fitting to a composite material rod comprising all the limitations of amended independent claim 1. The closest prior art being previously applied reference, US 4,184,784 (Killian) which fails to disclose the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Specifically, Killian fails to disclose the retainer (22) being placed onto the tool (20) prior to introduction of the tool into the bore (formed through 18). Killian instead discloses a fastener securing the retainer onto the tool after the tool as been introduced through the bore (see Figure 4); the opposite of claim 1.
Regarding claims 18-20 and 24, Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, are persuasive. The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest, a method for securing a fitting to a composite material rod comprising all the limitations of amended independent claim 18. The closest prior art being previously applied reference, US 4,184,784 (Killian) which fails to disclose the limitations of amended independent claim 1. Specifically, Killian fails to disclose a first stepped abutment providing a seating surface that is wider than the bore (formed through 18). One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to provide such a first stepped abutment, as it would not allow for the tool of Killian to pass through the bore (see Figure 4).
Claims 13, 21, and 22 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.
Regarding claim 13, Dewhirst discloses the assembly according to claim 8, but fails to disclose the rod (see “composite rod” in Figures 2 and 4) is of hollow, tubular form. The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Dewhirst such that the rod is of hollow, tubular form. Such a modification would teach away from the intended structure of Dewhirst which utilizes a rod with multiple axial splits on an end part in order to provide increased surface area for an adhesive to connect the rod to an associated insert and fitting (see page 1, final paragraph, which extends on to page 2).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Dewhirst discloses the assembly according to claim 8, but fails to disclose the end part of the bore or passage (see Figure 4, where the “Insert” is provided in said bore/passage) comprises a solid annular wall. The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Dewhirst such that the end part of the bore or passage comprises a solid annular wall. Such a modification would teach away from the intended structure of Dewhirst which utilizes a rod with multiple axial splits on an end part in order to provide increased surface area for an adhesive to connect the rod to an associated insert and fitting (see page 1, final paragraph, which extends on to page 2).
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.”
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the previous 112 rejections overcome said rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights