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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 04/21/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objection to the abstract and claims and the rejection of claims under 112(b), as outlined in the Office action mailed on 01/20/2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/1/2026, with respect to claims 9-15 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 9-15 and 17 over the art of record of Miller and Smith, as outlined in the Office action mailed 01/20/2026, has been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 9 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), product claims 1-8 which include the allowable subject of claim 9 and claims 19-20, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, a portion of the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/01/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9, each recites the verb/phrase “being” rather than “is” or “are” to positively recite the claimed terms. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim by appropriately changing “being” with “is” and “are” for a better consistency with the rest of the claim limitations including dependent claims (i.e., see claim 2 reciting “clamping surface is shaped to have”).
Claim 2 recites certain limitations which may be redundant with respect to the parent claim 1. The following amendment is suggested:
2 (currently amended). The end piece according to claim 1, wherein
the inner diameter of the positioning surface is equal to or less than the inner diameter of the profiled part by at most 0.1 mm; and
the diameter of the clamping surface is greater than the inner diameter of the profiled part by between 0.2 and 0.4 mm.
In claim 16, line 3 recites the limitation of “is equal to, or up to 0.1 mm greater than,” using comma punctuation mark while line 5 recites similar limitation of “is equal to or up to 0.1 mm smaller than” without using any comma mark. The examiner suggest using same punctuation marks throughout the claim set for a better consistency.
In claim 19, all of paragraphs a) through k) start with capital letters (i.e., Pressing, Inserting, Assembling, . . .) which could pose some confusion as to the significance of using capital letters in oppose to lower case letters. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to use lower case lettering at the start of each paragraph to overcome such claim objection.
Claim 19, line 3, the limitation of “by means of an assembly according to claim 9, which comprises the steps of” could be amended to - - by means of an assembly according to claim 9, the method comprises the steps of
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 1-20 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 7-8 recites the limitation “comprising at least one cylindrical inner housing” while line 10 recites the limitation “said inner housing being delimited” which is unclear as to which of the at least one cylindrical housing is being delimited and if only one is being delimited or every one of the at least one housing is being delimited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the length of the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the length of the total periphery" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the depth" and “the width” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the edge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations of “an oblique inwardly-facing annular wall” in line 3, “an inwardly-facing annular end wall” in line 4, “the annular wall” in lines 8, 10, 14 and “the annular wall being oblique” in lines 14-15. It is unclear if these are all the same or different annular walls.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “predominantly” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what percentage of the material of the end piece has to be flexible to be considered as predominantly.
Claim 9, lines 8-9 recites the limitation “comprising at least one cylindrical inner housing” while line 11 recites the limitation “said inner housing being delimited” which is unclear as to which of the at least one cylindrical housing is being delimited and if only one is being delimited or every one of the at least one housing is being delimited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing adapter” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the diameter of the part of the outer ring” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the inner wall” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the diameter in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the outer cylindrical wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing” in lines 2-4 and 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the diameter of the first housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing” in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the diameter of the second housing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the adjustment bearing” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the pronoun “its” at lines 2 and 28. It is difficult to determine to what claim element the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claim element each time it is to be referenced.
Claim 19 recites the pronoun “it” at line 30. It is difficult to determine to what claim element the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claim element each time it is to be referenced.
Claim 19, line 4 recites the limitation “an end piece” which is unclear if this the same or different end piece recited in claim 9 which claim 19 directly depends from.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the edge of the profiled part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is directly dependent on claim 9. However, claim 19 recites numerous phrases with insufficient antecedent basis such as “the edge of the profiled part,” “adjustment bearing,” “the tolerated limits,” “the working bearings” and the “bearing.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation of the bearings in line 2. However, claim 19 which claim 20 directly depends from recites the limitations of adjustment bearings and working bearings and as such, unclear which bearings are being referred back to in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, 9 and 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the claimed end piece used with a profiled part having the claimed structural features, as convincingly argued by the Applicant, in Remarks filed 04/21/2026 (pages 2-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights