NON-FINAL REJECTION 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites in part “ the second region […] is provided with at least one section having a structural modification ” but does not define what this structural modification is (i.e., what has been modified and what it’s been modified to ) . The Specification does not appear to define or describe what this refers to either . It is noted that although claim 5 recites that “ the at least structurally modified section has a lower material density than its surrounding area ”, this does not ameliorate the aforementioned indefiniteness because it does not define or describe what has been modified and what it's been modified to . Although the modification happens to have a lower density than its surrounding (hereinafter “density feature”) according to claim 5, it is still not clear what has actually been modified and what it’s been modified to in the sense that the density feature in and of itself may not necessarily be a modification per se (i.e., the density feature could have been in existence prior to modification; and that the “modification” therefore could refer to something else). Examiner Remarks Regarding Prior Art MPEP 2173.06 recites in part: I I . PRIOR ART REJECTION OF CLAIM REJECTED AS INDEFINITE All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson , 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible. First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu , 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted. Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele , 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The first approach is recommended from an examination standpoint because it avoids piecemeal examination in the event that the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection is not affirmed, and may give applicant a better appreciation for relevant prior art if the claims are redrafted to avoid the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection. As discussed above, the claim refers to some structural modification but does not describe or define what it is (i.e., what has been modified and what it’s been modified to). Therefore, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of this limitation in the claims. Any attempt to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would inherently involve speculation or assumptions about the limitation in the question because neither the Specification nor the claims states what has been modified and what it’s been modified to. It would therefore not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art because rejections should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Otherwise, Parimore et al., US 2008/0177387 A1 and Istephanous et al., US 2004/0243241 A1 are cited as being relevant to the invention as disclosed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4958 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT KEITH M. RAYMOND can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1790 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN T. SAKAMOTO Primary Examiner Art Unit 3798 /COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798 27 March 2026