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 .
Amendment filed 1/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 15-37 remain pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spars” in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 33-37 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.
Re. Cl. 33, the limitation “bolts placed at least in a center of the slats and in the vicinity of the end zones of the slats” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. The way the limitation is currently written, it appears as if there are multiple bolts in the center of the slats and in the vicinity of the end zones. However, Applicant’s disclosure appears to only illustrate a single bolt in the middle (see 50, Fig. 13) and multiple bolts located in the vicinity of the end zones (see 51, Fig. 13). Therefore, it is unclear if the Applicant intends to claim a plurality of bolts in the center of the slats and in the end zones or a single bolt in the center and a plurality at the end zones. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to refer to what is claimed in claim 13. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cl. 36, the limitation “at least the bolt placed in the center of the slats is equipped with a locking nut” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Claim 36 depends from claim 34 which establishes that the adjuster comprises a lock. Applicant’s disclosure references a lock, a locking means and locking nuts. However, the specification does not differentiate between these structures or indicate if they are the same thing. Applicant’s figures do not appear to illustrate all of these structures or make it clear which structure is which if they are different. Therefore, it is unclear what the “lock” is and how it is different from the locking nut, if it is different at all. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riedele US 1497880 (hereinafter Riedele).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 33, Riedele discloses: A connecting rod (Fig. 2) comprising two elastically flexible slats (6 and 1s, Fig. 2) which are curved (see Fig. 2) and arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal axis of the connecting rod (see Fig. 1, the slats 6 and 1s are symmetrical with respect to the shown axis), said slats comprising: end zones (see annotated figure 2) running parallel to said axis; a transverse spacer (15, 8, Fig. 2) placed between the slats (see Fig. 2); and a fastener (14-15, 18, 9-12, Fig. 2) for securing the slats to each other and to the transverse spacer (see Fig. 1-3); wherein the fastener comprises bolts (18, 12, Fig. 2) placed at least in a center of the slats (see 12, Fig. 1-3) and in the vicinity of the end zones of the slats (see 18s, Fig. 1-3), said bolts being adjusters for adjusting the curve of the slats with a view to vary an axial length of the connecting rod (see Fig. 1-3, by adjusting how tight bolts 18 and 12 are tightened, the shape or curve of the slats would be altered by the degree in which 15 and 8 are deformed).
Re. Cl. 34, Riedele discloses: the adjuster comprises a lock (see 9-10 in Fig. 5 which helps to lock 6 and 1 relative to one another with the bolt 12).
Re. Cl. 35, Riedele discloses: at least the bolt placed in the center of the slats is equipped with a locking nut (see nut on 12, Fig. 5).
Re. Cl. 36, Riedele discloses: at least the bolt placed in the center of the slats is equipped with a locking nut (see nut on 12, Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedele in view of Wering US 1658111 (hereinafter Wering).
Re. Cl. 37, Riedele does not disclose that the slats are made of one or more of the following materials: composite material comprising carbon-fiber reinforced polymer, glass- fiber reinforced polymer, metal comprising aluminum or steel. Wering discloses an alternate connecting rod (Fig. 1) which has a similar utility to Riedele and where the slats (8, 9) are made out of a metal comprising steel (Page 2, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the Riedele slats to be spring steel as disclosed by Wering with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-32 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sampson US 1820633, Jandus US 1770885, and Ward US 1242090 disclose other known connecting rods which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632