DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 14 March 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-4 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 3-4 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “subjecting the tubular chambers to high pressure within the assembly chamber (301) with liquid or gas, wherein both tubular chambers are assembled with a gadget and small guides” at lines 30-32. The term “guides” appeared only in the original disclosure in Originally filed claim 1, and the term “gadget” is recited only in the Specification at page 1, lines 13-16 and claim 1 as originally filed. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine whether the tubular chambers are assembled with a gadget or with guides, where both gadget and the guides are not described.
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 1-2 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 has been amended to recite “subjecting the tubular chambers to high pressure within the assembly chamber (301) with liquid or gas, wherein both tubular chambers are assembled with a gadget and small guides” at lines 30-32. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine the boundaries of high pressure. A review of the Specification does not appear to provide numerical values suggesting the boundaries of high pressure.
Claim 1 recites “being one or two of said cylinders already interference-joined” at lines 1-2 and “wherein one or two of the concentric cylinders (101, 102) are already interference joined” at lines 22-23. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that one cylinder is interference joined. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, interference joining requires two structures to form the joint.
Claim 1 recites “providing the two or more concentric cylinders (101, 102), wherein one or two of the concentric cylinders (101, 102) are already interference-joined, a plurality of auxiliary cylindrical tubes (201, 202), a plurality of caps (211, 221, 213, 214) and an assembly chamber (301) of high pressure, a plurality of elastic and structural guides to push the cylinder (102) into the cylinder (101), being inside the assembly chamber (201)” at lines 22-26. It is unclear what structure is being described as being inside the assembly chamber.
Claim 1 recites “wherein at least the two concentric cylinders are placed inside the assembly chamber” at lines 26-27. It is unclear whether the claimed method positively requires an active placing, or whether the limitation is met so long as during the providing the concentric cylinders are located within the assembly chamber.
Claim 1 recites “preparing each pair or set of concentric cylinders (101, 201) and (102, 202) with the respective caps (211, 212), (213, 214) welded or glued forming tubular chambers” at lines 28-29. It is unclear why the respective caps are separated with a comma, and thus confusing how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim.
Claim 1 recites “preparing each pair or set of concentric cylinders (101, 201) and (102, 202) with the respective caps (211, 212), (213, 214) welded or glued forming tubular chambers” at lines 28-29. It is unclear whether the claimed method positively requires an active welding or gluing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the auxiliary cylinders" in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes a previous recitation to “a plurality of auxiliary cylindrical tubes” at lines 23-24.
Claim 1 recites “removing the auxiliary cylinders from the tubular chambers” at line 36. It is unclear how or when the auxiliary cylinders are positioned within tubular chambers to be removed.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “preparing the pair of cylindrical tubes (101 and 201) with caps, wherein the tube (102) with circular caps or without caps is also prepared” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether the method affirmatively requires preparing the tube 102.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pair of cylindrical tubes (101 and 201)" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the tube (102)" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 14 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
The previously presented rejections of claims 1 and 2 have been addressed. However, the amendments provide a new basis for rejection under 35 USC 112.
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 DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights