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 .
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.
Regarding claim 1, which recites the limitations of “the move”, on the 2nd to last line, and “the reverse”, on the last line; there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to overcome the rejection, and clarify claim terminology, it is suggested the limitation of “the move”, on the 2nd to last line, be deleted and replaced with the word “movement”, and the limitation of “the reverse”, on the last line, be amended by deleting the word “the” and replacing it with the word “a”.
Regarding claim 4, which recites the limitations of “a first state” and “a second state”, on the last two lines of the claim; are these limitations the same as the ones first set forth on lines 8 and 9 of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. If they are not, then it is found to be confusing how there can be multiple first and second states, and/or what exactly those multiple first and second states are, and/or how exactly do they relate to each other and the final structure of the device. However, if they are the same (as they seem to be), it is suggested the limitations be amended by deleting the word “a”, of each limitation, and replacing it with the word “the”, in order to overcome the rejection and keep claim terminology consistent.
Regarding claim 7, which recites the limitation of “each elastic element”, on lines 3 and 4; however, this is found to be confusing since it is not clear if “each elastic element” is in reference to the “at least one secondary elastic element”, set forth on line 2 of claim 7, or the “at least one elastic element” first set forth on line 3 of claim 1, from which claim 7 ultimately depends. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable be apprised of the scope of the invention, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, which recites the limitations of “the front side” (of the carriage), on the 2nd to last line, and “the back side” (of the carriage), on the last line; there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In order to overcome the rejection, and keep claim terminology consistent, it is suggested the above mentioned limitations be amended by deleting the word “the”, for both limitations, and replacing it with the word “a”.
Regarding claim 10, which recites the limitation of “rollers” on line 3; are these rollers the same structure as the rollers first set forth on line 2, or are they different/separate and distinct roller structures from one another. If they are different from one another, then it is found to be confusing as to what exactly the different/distinct roller structures of each of the rollers are, and/or how exactly each of the roller structures relate to the final structure of the device. However, if they are the same structure (as they seem to be), it is suggested the above mentioned limitation be amended by adding the word “the” before the word “roller”, on line 3, in order to clarify the claim and keep terminology consistent.
Regarding claim 11, which recites the limitation “the signal”, on line 1; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to overcome the rejection, and keep claim terminology consistent, it is suggested the above mentioned limitation be amended by deleting the word “the” and replacing it with the word “a”.
Regarding claim 15, which recites the limitation “the rollers”, on line 1; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to overcome this issue, it is suggested claim 15 depend from claim 10 (which introduces the limitation of “rollers”) instead of depending from claim 1. Furthermore, the parameter of the rollers, carriage and/or slider “are all in plastic or all in unlubricated steel” (emphasis added) is found to be confusing, since it is not clear what exactly, structurally, is meant by being “all in”. In order to overcome this issue, it is suggested the term “all in” be replaced with the word(s) “comprises”, or “consists of” if the components are only made of said specific material, such that the parameter states the rollers, carriage and/or slider “comprises/consists of plastic or unlubricated steel”.
Regarding claim 17, which recites the limitation “the rotation”, on line 5; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to overcome the rejection, and keep claim terminology consistent, it is suggested the above mentioned limitation be amended by deleting the word “the” and replacing it with the word “a”.
Regarding claim 20, which recites the limitation “the front side”, on line 9; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to overcome the rejection, and keep claim terminology consistent, it is suggested the above mentioned limitation be amended by deleting the word “the” and replacing it with the word “a”.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schimmels et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0203359), hereinafter Schimmels.
Regarding claim 20, Schimmels disclose an asymmetric device, illustrated in Figures 4-9, comprising a casing (32c); a unidirectional locking system (32b); a slider (32a) slidably inserted into the casing (32c); a priming system (F) configured to switch between a first state of the asymmetric device and a second state of the asymmetric device and vice-versa; wherein the slider (3a) is configured to slide inside the casing (32c), wherein, in the first state, illustrated in Figures 5 and 8, the unidirectional locking system (32b) is disabled and is abutted towards the front/bottom side of the casing (32c), wherein, in the second state, illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, the unidirectional locking system (32b) is primed, the slider (32a) is free to slide in a first direction into the casing (32c) and the move of the slider (32a) in the reverse direction into the casing is prevented ([0031] – [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art, by itself, or in combination with other art, could be found that discloses or fairly teaches a device for storing mechanical energy including all the structural limitations set forth in independent claim 1. The closest related art, of Schimmels, teaches a device for storing mechanical energy comprising a support (A’) comprising a front side and a rear side defining a curvilinear axis; carriage (3a) connected to at least one elastic element (3), each elastic element being configured to store energy and one extremity (3b) of each elastic element (3) being connected to the support (A’); a unidirectional locking system (32); priming system (F/F’) configured to switch between a first state of the device and a second state of the device and vice-versa; wherein the carriage (3a) is configured to move, which leads to storage of energy by the at least one elastic element (3), wherein, in the first state, illustrated in Figures 3, 8 and 9, the unidirectional locking system (32) is disabled, and wherein in the second state, illustrated in Figures 4-7, the unidirectional locking system (32) is primed, the carriage (3a) is free to slide in a first direction but movement of the carriage (3a) in a reverse direction is prevented ([0026] – [0033]). However Schimmels does not teach a slider slidably inserted into the carriage and configured to slide inside the carriage, wherein in the second state the slider is free to slide in a first direction into the carriage and movement of the slider in the reverse direction into the carriage is prevented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINAH BARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at 408-918-7557. 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.
/DINAH BARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 04/08/2026
Prosecution Insights