DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species i (A first species of the expanding structure in which the tensioning piece thereof is a draw-in bolt as is disclosed within at least paragraphs [0081] and [00106] of the specification) in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
Furthermore, Applicant submits that the features recited in claim 1 are not disclosed or taught by the cited references. Therefore, the features recited in claim 1 constitute a common special technical feature(s) among Species i-iii. It is respectfully submitted that examining these species together would not impose an undue burden on the Examiner regarding search and examination. At least based on the foregoing, Applicant submits that withdrawal of the Election of Species Requirement is appropriate.
This is not found to be persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s that, “the features recited in claim 1 are not disclosed or taught by the cited references. Therefore, the features recited in claim 1 constitute a common special technical feature(s) among Species i-iii,” please be advised of the following. First, Examiner hasn’t cited any references like Applicant argues. Next, please be advised that Applicant’s arguments pertain to Unity of Invention. The current application; however, is not a national stage application. Since the current application is not a national stage application, Applicant was required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Since Applicant’s arguments concerning “a common special technical feature” apply to Unity of Invention rather than 35 U.S.C. 121, Applicant’s arguments are not applicable and are therefore not persuasive.
Next, with regards to Applicant’s argument concerning “undue burden on the Examiner regarding search and examination,” Examiner notes the following. According to MPEP § 808.02.
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...
Regarding part (B) (which is the part that deals with Applicant’s traversal arguments regarding search burden, MPEP section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”) notes that:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Please note that it is only necessary to show one of A, B, or C to establish burden. In the instant case, C was established. On page 3 of the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 3/11/2026, it was established that at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to search the identified inventions. Thus, burden has been properly established. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/30/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because neither the “expanding structure” of claim 1 nor the “cylinder internal unit” of each claims 1 and 20 is pointed to within the drawings with its own reference character. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a plurality of first expanding assemblies” in claims 1 and 20 (noting that the term “expanding” is a function such that the claims recite a plurality of first assemblies for performing the function of expanding, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of expanding);
“a plurality of second expanding assemblies” in claims 1 and 20 (noting that the term “expanding” is a function such that the claims recite a plurality of second assemblies for performing the function of expanding, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of expanding);
“a tensioning piece…configured to drive the expanding strip to move in a direction away from the mounting strip under an external force” in claim 10; and
“the tensioning piece” in claims 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “disposed” should be inserted before “away from the press block”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “two sides” should be changed to “[[two]] opposing sides”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 2-3 of the claim, “two sides” should be changed to “[[two]] opposing sides”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “two ends” should be changed to “[[two]] opposing ends”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “disposed” should be inserted before “away from the groove segment”. 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 1-15 and 18-20 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.
Line 2 of claim 1 states, “an internal unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “an internal unit” of line 2 of claim 1 is a same internal unit or is a different internal unit than the “cylinder internal unit” set forth in line 1 of claim 1. If the “internal unit” and the “cylinder internal unit” are not the same element, how or in what way do the “internal unit” and the “cylinder internal unit” differ from one another?
Lines 1-2 of claim 2 state, “wherein the first expanding assembly.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular first expanding assembly of the “plurality of first expanding assemblies” of claim 1 that “the first expanding assembly” of claim 2 is intended to reference. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “wherein each of the first expanding assemblies.”
Lines 3-5 of claim 2 state, “a press block mounted on the base through a compression screw and configured to move in a direction closing to the base under an external force of tightening the compression screw.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the press block “closing to the base”. Is this to say that the press block approaches the base under an external force of tightening the compression screw?
Lines 2-4 of claim 5 state, “circles where arc surfaces of the slide blocks of the plurality of first expanding assemblies are located coincide with each other.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as is written, it is unclear if each individual slide block has one respective arc surface or if instead each individual slide block has plural respective arc surfaces.
Lines 1-2 of claim 10 state, “wherein the second expanding assembly.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular second expanding assembly of the “plurality of second expanding assemblies” of claim 1 that “the second expanding assembly” of claim 10 is intended to reference. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “wherein each of the second expanding assemblies.”
Line 3 of claim 11 states, “an end of the internal unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “an end of the internal unit” of line 3 of claim 11 is the same end of the internal unit or a different end of the internal than the “end of the internal unit” previously set forth in line 2 of claim 1.
Line 2 of claim 20 states, “an internal unit.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the “internal unit” of line 2 of claim 20 and the “cylinder internal unit” of line 1 of claim 20 differ from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0059502 A1).
Claim 1: Figures 1-2 of Xu show an expanding structure for a cylinder internal unit. Next, Figure 3 shows the expanding structure (100+200) as comprising a first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) arranged at an end of an internal unit (100) and as further comprising a second expanding structure (30, 60, 80) arranged “on a side wall” of the internal unit (100), specifically arranged “on” (via at least one coupling member (30), for example) an outer circumferential “side wall” of a main shaft (10) of the internal unit (100), for example.
Next, please be advised that “a plurality of first expanding assemblies” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Be advised that said “plurality of first expanding assemblies” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed within paragraphs [0056-0057] of Applicant's specification filed on 2/28/2024, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, Figures 3-5 of Xu show a plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) that are arranged at the end of the internal unit (100) through a base (20). It is noted that when a nut (90) is driven to move along the main shaft (10) [paragraph 0016] toward the at least one coupling member (30), the result is the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) being pivoted. In being pivoted, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) expand, which results in pushing members (80) of the expanding structure moving away from one another with respect to a radial direction. As such, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) are an equivalent of the “plurality of first expanding assemblies” of claim 1. This is because the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu carry out the function of, “expanding.” Also, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu are not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu produce substantially the same results as the corresponding “plurality of first expanding assemblies [11]” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50).”
Noting the above, as can be seen within Figures 3-5 of Xu, the first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) comprises the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50) which are arranged at the end of the internal unit (100) through the base (20), wherein a central axis of the base (20) coincides with a central axis of the internal unit (100). Also, as can be seen within Figures 3 and 4, the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50) are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the base (20).
Next, please be advised that “a plurality of second expanding assemblies” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Be advised that said “plurality of second expanding assemblies” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed within paragraph [0078] of Applicant's specification filed on 2/28/2024, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art, Figures 3-5 of Xu show therein a plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) that are arranged “on the side wall” of the internal unit (100), specifically arranged “on” (via at least one coupling member (30), for example) the outer circumferential “side wall” of the main shaft (10) of the internal unit (100), for example. Noting this, second linkages (60) of the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) are pivoted to corresponding first linkages (40) and further pivoted to the pushing members (80) [paragraph 0027]. It is noted that when the nut (90) is driven to move along the main shaft (10) toward the at least one coupling member (30), the aforesaid pushing members (80) (of the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80)) function to move away from one another [paragraph 0016]. That is to say that there is radial expansion.
As such, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) are an equivalent of the “plurality of second expanding assemblies” of claim 1. This is because the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu carry out the function of “expanding,” and the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu are not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification. Also, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu produce substantially the same results as the corresponding “plurality of second expanding assemblies [21]” of Applicant. Therefore, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the plurality of second expanding assemblies (60, 80).”
Lastly, as can be seen in Figures 3-5 of Xu, the second expanding structure (30, 60, 80) comprises the plurality of second expanding assemblies (40, 50) which are arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction of the internal unit (100).
Claim 9: As can be seen in Figure 3, the number of first expanding structures (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) is “one.” Since there is one, the limitation corresponding to, “wherein a case that there are two first expanding structures” is not required to be met. It is noted that Applicant sets forth in claim 9 “one or two” (emphasis added) when it comes to the number of the first expanding structure. Due to the use of “or,” only one (“one”) or the other (“two”) have to be met.
Noting the above, the limitation corresponding to, “wherein a case that there are two first expanding structures…” functions to limit the case of “two” first expanding structures but not the case of “one” first expanding structure. Again though, as it pertains to Xu, the expanding structure is considered to comprise “one” first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91). (On a side note, please be advised that the first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) is but only one possible interpretation of how the “first expanding structure” of Xu may be considered to be embodied).
Claim 20: Figures 1-2 of Xu show a cylinder internal unit comprising an internal unit (100). Next, Figure 3 of Xu shows the cylinder internal unit as comprising a first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) arranged at an end of the internal unit (100) and further comprising a second expanding structure (30, 60, 80) arranged “on a side wall” of the internal unit (100), specifically arranged “on” (via at least one coupling member (30), for example) an outer circumferential “side wall” of a main shaft (10) of the internal unit (100), for example.
Next, please be advised that “a plurality of first expanding assemblies” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Be advised that said “plurality of first expanding assemblies” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed within paragraphs [0056-0057] of Applicant's specification filed on 2/28/2024, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, Figures 3-5 of Xu show a plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) that are arranged at the end of the internal unit (100) through a base (20). It is noted that when a nut (90) is driven to move along the main shaft (10) [paragraph 0016] toward the at least one coupling member (30), the result is the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) being pivoted. In being pivoted, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) expand, which results in pushing members (80) of the expanding structure moving away from one another with respect to a radial direction. As such, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) are an equivalent of the “plurality of first expanding assemblies” of claim 20. This is because the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu carry out the function of, “expanding.” Also, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu are not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu produce substantially the same results as the corresponding “plurality of first expanding assemblies [11]” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the plurality of first linkage assemblies (40, 50) of Xu will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50).”
Noting the above, as can be seen within Figures 3-5 of Xu, the first expanding structure (20, 40, 50, 90, 91) comprises the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50) which are arranged at the end of the internal unit (100) through the base (20), wherein a central axis of the base (20) coincides with a central axis of the internal unit (100). Also, as can be seen within Figures 3 and 4, the plurality of first expanding assemblies (40, 50) are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the base (20).
Next, please be advised that “a plurality of second expanding assemblies” is being interpreted by Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Be advised that said “plurality of second expanding assemblies” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed within paragraph [0078] of Applicant's specification filed on 2/28/2024, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art, Figures 3-5 of Xu show therein a plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) that are arranged “on the side wall” of the internal unit (100), specifically arranged “on” (via at least one coupling member (30), for example) the outer circumferential “side wall” of the main shaft (10) of the internal unit (100), for example. Noting this, second linkages (60) of the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) are pivoted to corresponding first linkages (40) and further pivoted to the pushing members (80) [paragraph 0027]. It is noted that when the nut (90) is driven to move along the main shaft (10) toward the at least one coupling member (30), the aforesaid pushing members (80) (of the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80)) function to move away from one another [paragraph 0016]. That is to say that there is radial expansion.
As such, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) are an equivalent of the “plurality of second expanding assemblies” of claim 20. This is because the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu carry out the function of “expanding,” and the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu are not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification. Also, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu produce substantially the same results as the corresponding “plurality of second expanding assemblies [21]” of Applicant. Therefore, the plurality of second assemblies (60, 80) of Xu will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the plurality of second expanding assemblies (60, 80).”
Lastly, as can be seen in Figures 3-5 of Xu, the second expanding structure (30, 60, 80) comprises the plurality of second expanding assemblies (40, 50) which are arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction of the internal unit (100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figures 1-2 of Grassi (U.S. PG Publication No. 2016/0091007 A1) show therein an expanding structure (11) comprising a plurality of opposing first expanding structures (6, 6) which are able to radially expand so as to secure the structure (11) within the confines of a hollow cylinder (1). Moreover, Figures 1-2 of White (U.S. Patent No. 11,343,944 B2) show therein an expanding structure (102) comprising a second expanding structure (103) located along a longitudinal axis of said expanding structure (102). As can be seen in Figures 1 and 9, through expansion, the wedge members (111a-e) of the second expanding structure (103) can be displaced so as to abut against an internal surface (180) of a hollow pressure vessel (101).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights