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
Amendment filed 10 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20 and 22-23 are currently amended. Claims 3, 4, -8, 14-16, 19 and 21 are as previously presented. Claims 10-11, 13, 17 and 25 are previously cancelled.
Amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07 November 2025.
Amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07 November 2025. However, the examiner provides new 35 USC § 112 rejections upon review of the claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments, filed 10 February 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 6-8, 14-16 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 5, 9, 12, 18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 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 "a tensile stress" in lines 2-3. Claim 1 lines 6, 10 and 16, recites “a tensile stress". It is not clear if the "a tensile stress" of lines 2-3 and lines 6, 10 and 16 are the same or different. Examiner notes: (1) The applicant’s fig. 3 shows a stress/strain curve where the stress values are changing between each stage of compression, however it is not clear if the tensile stress would be the same stress with a different value. (2) Claim 1 has multiple instances of “the tensile stress” and any change to “a tensile stress” would need to be addressed to any following “the tensile stress” as applicable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an average stiffness" in line 24. Claim 1 line 26 recites "an average stiffness". It is not clear if the "an average stiffness" of line 24 and line 26 are the same or different. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected based on the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the stress-strain curve" in line 2. Where "a stress-strain curve" is not found in claim tree of claim 4 and claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gradient" in line 1. Where "a gradient" is not found in claim tree of claim 7 and claim 1. Examiner note: a gradient if found in at least claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the stress-strain curve" in lines 1-2. Where "a stress-strain curve" is not found in claim tree of claim 7 and claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the stress-strain curve" in lines 1-2. Where "a stress-strain curve" is not found in claim tree of claim 15 and claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 24 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 2-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 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 independent claim 1, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…wherein the second fraction is between 40% and 60% of the uncompressed length…”. The closest prior art of Nishinokubi et al. (JP H1151102 A) discloses in fig. 8 that the “distortion” under area of “b” ends between 30% to less than 40% (See at least: fig. 8: where fig. 8’s curve is comparable to that of the applicant’s fig. 3 which discusses stress values, stages, fractions and length. See comparison of the two below). Therefore, the Applicant discloses a element that preforms differently than shown in the prior art based on the fig. 3 along with the claimed precent (%) of uncompressed length.
PNG
media_image1.png
673
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claims 2-9, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 would be allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615