DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 (line 20) “such that free ends” should recite –such that the free ends--.
In claim 18 (lines 1-3) “the retainer ring further includes a plurality… ring section by the webs, ” should be deleted.
In claim 19 (line 18) “such that free ends” should recite –such that the free ends--.
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 1-5 and 7-20 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.
Claim 1 (lines 20-23), claim 17 (lines 15-18) and claim 19 (lines 18-21) each recite “the second fingers protruding radially inward from the webs such that [the] free ends of the second fingers define an innermost diameter of the retainer ring, each of the second fingers being directly radially aligned with a respective one of the first fingers”.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 each fail to recite any limitations which enable one to properly determine how the webs are circumferentially spatially related to the first fingers, and how the second fingers are circumferentially spatially related to and extend from the webs, such to allow each of the second fingers to be “directly radially aligned with a respective one of the first fingers”. It is unclear as to how each of the second fingers can both “protrude radially inward from the webs” and be “directly radially aligned with a respective one of the first fingers” without interference between the first fingers and the second fingers or interference between the webs and the first fingers. Accordingly, one is unable to properly determine the metes and bounds of such claims. Claims 2-5, 7-16, 18 and 20 depend from claims 1, 17 and 19 and are like rejected as being indefinite.
Examiner notes that inclusion of the limitations of claims 12 and 15 within each of claims 1, 17 and 19 would overcome such 35 USC 112 rejection.
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.
Claim 4 is 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the second fingers define an innermost diameter of the retainer ring”.
Claim 1 (lines 20-21), from which claim 4 depends, recites “the second fingers protruding radially inward from the webs such that free ends of the second fingers define an innermost diameter of the retainer ring”. Accordingly, claim 4 fails to further limit claim 1.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1, 17 and 19, Van Der Vecht (US 12,203,498) discloses the claimed retainer ring with the exception of the free ends of the second fingers being configured for being received in a second groove in a second circumferential surface of the second part, the second fingers protruding radially inward from the webs such that the free ends of the second fingers define an innermost diameter of the retainer ring, each of the second fingers being directly radially aligned with a respective one of the first fingers.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retainer ring disclosed by Van Der Vecht to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
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 MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
05/23/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights