belDETAILED 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 09 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14, 17-18, 20-22 and 24 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 is as originally presented. Claims 3, 6-14, 17, 20-22 and 24 are as previously presented. Claims 2, 4-5 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 15-16, 19, 23 and 25 are 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 partially overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07 November 2025. In the remarks pages 1 and 4 {of 10} both state that claims 11, 14 and 17 have been amended. However, the amended claim set show these claims as previously presented. Therefore, the examiner maintains a portion of the previous 35 USC § 112 rejections. Additionally, the examiner provides new 35 USC § 112 rejections upon review of the claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments, filed 09 February 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13, 17-18, 20-22 and 24 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 1-14, 17-18, 20-22 and 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 maximum dimension" in line 6. Claim 1 line 7 recites "a maximum dimension". It is not clear if the "a maximum dimension" of line 6 and line 7 are the same or different. Examiner note: applicant may amend to “a first maximum dimension” and “a second maximum dimension” to overcome this rejection. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a direction substantially perpendicular" in line 6. Claim 1 lines 7-8 recites " a direction substantially perpendicular ". It is not clear if the " a direction substantially perpendicular " of line 6 and lines 7-8 are the same or different. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one of the plurality of shells" in line 11. Claim 1 lines 12 and 20 recites "one of the plurality of shells". It is not clear if the "one of the plurality of shells" of line 11, 12 and 20 are the same or different. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an adjacent shell..." in lines 11-12. Claim 1 lines 13 and 20 recites "an adjacent shell..." It is not clear if the "an adjacent shell..." " of line 11, 12 and 20 are the same or different. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the compressive force" in line 2. Claim 1 line 14 recites "a compressive stress”. It is not clear if the " the compressive force" is unknown in the claim tree of claim 7 to claim 1. Additionally, it is not clear if " the compressive force" of claim 7 is the same as or different than "a compressive stress” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14, 17-18, 20-22 and 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 11 recites the limitation "a first stress value" in line 6. Claim 11 line 3 recites “a first stress value”. It is not clear if "a first stress value" of line 6 is the same or different than "a first stress value" of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an uncompressed length" in line 4. Claim 1 line 19 recites “an uncompressed length”. It is not clear if "an uncompressed length" of claim 11 is the same or different than "an uncompressed length" of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "adjacent shells" in line 13. Claim 1 lines 11-12 recites “an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells”. It is not clear if " adjacent shells " of claim 11 is the same or different than "an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells" of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 17 recite the limitation "the first shoulder portion" once in claim 14 line 2 and twice in claim 17 lines 3 and 5. Where the claim tree of claim 13 and claim 1 does not recite “a first shoulder portion”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “a first shoulder portion” to be “the shoulder portion”. 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 2-14, 17-18, and 20-22 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 “…the central section of one of the plurality of shells contacts the central section of an adjacent shell of the plurality of shells…”. The closest prior art of Bajeli et al. (US 6112691 A) does not disclose that the members 10’s “central section” contact each other in operation of damper device (See at least: figs. 1 and 2 provided below, where the minor base 11 is interpreted by the examiner to make first contact preventing the member 10’s frusto-conical sections to contact at the “central section”). See previous office action of 07 November 2025 for explanation “central section” of claim 1 is when applied to the prior art of Bajeli et al. Therefore, the Applicant has a defining operational feature that allows the element to preform differently based on the design, shape or size of the applicant’s element that is different than shown in the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claims 2-14, 17-18, 20-22 and 24 would be allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Lunde (US 3645225 A) teaches a line comprises a plurality of resilient cushion pads 60 where a pair of cushion pads 60 are substantially donut shaped and made of a resilient hard rubber) (See at least: figs. 7-8).
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