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 amendment filed on 04/01/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. Based on the amendment, previously withdrawn claims 10, 14, 15 are rejoined and examined along with claims 1-10 and newly added claims 21-28.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In specification, paragraph [0044], line 2, the phrase “if further driven into” should be amended to - - [[if]] is further driven into - -.
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 1-10, 14-15 and 21-28 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 recites the limitation "the weight of the part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 dependent on claim recites the step of forming the interference fit (of claim 1) further comprises deflecting flanges of the pin inserted into an undersized hole which is unclear if there are only one or multiple undersized hole recited in claim 15.
Claim 21 directly depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “forming an interference fit between a pin and an undersized hole disposed at a surface of the part, wherein forming the interference fit comprises placing a sacrificial jacket at the pin into contact with the undersized hole.” Claim 21 recites that the step of forming the interference fit further comprises two steps of 1) inserting the pin into the undersized hole and deflecting flanges of the pin outward and 2) inserting the pin into the undersized hole and driving an internal rod of the pin into an internal recess of the pin. It is unclear if all of these recited steps are performed in a series or separate steps. The limitation of “further comprising” in claim 21 appears to imply that in addition to the interference fit formed in claim 1 by placing the sacrificial jacket and the pin into the undersized hole then multiple insertions of the pin are required by claim 21.
Claim 22 recites that a pin is press fit into an undersized hole and the part is surface treated while at least the portion of the weight of the part is supported by the interference fit. However, it is unclear where the undersized hole is located with respect to the part. Phrased differently, would using an element separate from the part, with element having the undersized hole with a press fit pin in the hole to carry the weight of the part while the part is treated would read on claim 22 limitation or the undersized hole needs to be disposed in a surface of the part and not a separate element. In addition, claim 22 recites that the pin is press fit into the undersized hole. The claim further recites that the undersized hole is being drilled to an assembly diameter. However, it is unclear how the undersized hole which has received a pin in the interior of the hole in a press-fit manner can be further drilled while the pin is inserted in the hole.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the portion of the weight of the part" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “supporting at least a portion of the weight of the part with the interference fit.” However, independent claim 22 which claim 24 directly depends from recites the limitation “surface treating the part while at least the portion of the weight of the part is supported by the interference fit.” As such, it is unclear how many portions of the part are being supported by the interference fit and if the cited limitations above are the same or different from one another.
Claim 26 which directly depends from claim 22 recites the limitation “adjusting a pulley system for differences in elevation between multiple interference fits. However, claim 22 does not recite any limitations regarding multiple interference fits and it appears that either claim 22 needs to be amended to include multiple interference fits or claim 26 needs to be depended on claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 14-15 and 21 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.
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 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 06/15/2026
Prosecution Insights