DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Species 13 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “since Species 11 is the basic concept, i.e. broader claim, to which Species 12, 13 and 14 represent additional features building from Species 11, and again not patentably distinct” (Page 7). The applicant’s admission that Species 11-14 are obvious variations of one another is found persuasive and Species 11-14 are under examination accordingly.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 1-3 and 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/3/2026. Claim 1 recites “a membrane disposed outside the outer surface of the first wall” (Line 3). Claim 5 recites “wherein the surrounding wall is reinforced with an additional wall”. These features are absent from elected Species 13 and the obvious variants of Species 11, 12 and 14. Therefore, these claims are withdrawn from consideration for being directed towards a non-obvious, unelected embodiment.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure recites “The fluid passage could then be tightly rolled of folded towards the orifice and primary chamber to force more fluid into the primary chamber. This tightly rolled of folded section of the fluid passage serves a mechanism for altering the internal pressure of the primary chamber by controlling the volume of fluid present in the fluid passage prior to impact, which can be secured shut until a desired internal pressure is reached” (Emphasis added. See Page 114, lines 9-14). It is unclear what “rolled of folded” means. It appears that the applicant intended to write “rolled or folded”. The Examiner suggests amending the language accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “at least section” (Line 4), which should probably be changed to --at least one section--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 4, 6-8, 10-16, 18-19, 21-24 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 4 recites “at least one orifice” (Line 3) and “the at least one orifices” (Line 4). It is unclear how many orifices are required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the surrounding wall comprises an additional impermeable material”. It is unclear whether one or two layers of impermeable material are required. The word “additional” suggests two or more layers, although the elected species lacks this. The Examiner has presumed a single layer for examination purposes.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “tightly rolling”. The adjective “tightly” is subjective, making the scope of the claim unclear. The examiner suggests deleting it.
Claim 15 recites “at least section in the primary chamber through which fluid is intended to travel through an orifice” (Lines 4-5). The passage is written in a confusing manner, making the scope unclear. It is also unclear how the claimed invention determines “which fluid is intended to travel through an orifice”.
Claim 15 recites “an orifice” (Line 5). Dependent claim 22 recites “an orifice”. It is unclear if this refers to the same orifice or a different one.
Claim 15 recites “an orifice” (Line 5). Dependent claims 23-24 each recite “the at least one orifices”. It is unclear how many orifices are required.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the surrounding wall is reinforced with an additional wall”. It is unclear whether the applicant considers the impermeable layer (1907) and surrounding wall (1909) to be separate walls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 10-13, 15-16, 18, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozar et al (US 2019/0071187).
As per claim 4, Kozar et al discloses a collapsible shock absorber (Title), comprising:
(a) a primary chamber (202A; Alternate interpretation: 202B) defined by a surrounding wall (200A; Alternate interpretation: 230);
(b) at least one orifice (226A; [0026]; Alternate interpretation: Fig. 2B) in the primary chamber through which fluid can travel;
(c) at least one fluid passage (204A; [0021]; Alternate interpretation: 204B; [0029]) that begins at one or more of the at least one orifices in the primary chamber and extends distally from the primary chamber;
(d) a fluid (210) that occupies a volume of the primary chamber, a volume of the at least one fluid passage, or both; and
(e) a mechanism ([0021]; Fig. 8; Alternate interpretation: [0029]; Fig. 8) for altering an internal pressure of the primary chamber by controlling the volume of fluid present in the at least one fluid passage prior to impact.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 6, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein the surrounding wall comprises an additional impermeable material (Alternate interpretation: 200B).
As per claim 7, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein the mechanism for altering the internal pressure of the primary chamber involves tightly rolling up the at least one fluid passage (204A, Fig. 2A; Alternate interpretation: 204B, Fig. 2B).
As per claim 10, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein the volume of the at least one fluid passage expands at a desired internal fluid pressure of the primary chamber (804, 806; [0049], [0050]).
As per claim 11, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein the at least one fluid passage is not sealed at an end farthest from the primary chamber after an impact to the primary chamber (Although a fuel tank fracture would be undesirable, Kozar et al discloses the same claimed structure as the invention and would be capable of rupturing at the distal end of the secondary bladder portion due to an excessive load 204A; Alternate interpretation: 204B).
As per claim 12, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein the mechanism for altering an internal pressure of the primary chamber can be repeated after the impact (804, 806; [0049], [0050]).
As per claim 13, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber is substantially flat (Fig. 2A; Alternate interpretation: Fig. 2B).
As per claim 15, Kozar et al discloses a collapsible shock absorber (Title), comprising:
(a) a primary chamber (202A; Alternate interpretation: 202B) defined by a surrounding wall (200A; Alternate interpretation: 200B) comprising an impermeable material (200A; Alternate interpretation: 200B);
(b) at least section in the primary chamber through which fluid is intended to travel through an orifice (226A; [0026]; Alternate interpretation: Fig. 2B);
(c) a fluid (210) that occupies a volume of the primary chamber; and
(d) a mechanism ([0021]; Fig. 8; Alternate interpretation: [0029]; Fig. 8) for altering the internal pressure of the primary chamber by altering the volume of the primary chamber.
As per claim 16, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 15, wherein the surrounding wall is reinforced with an additional wall (Alternate interpretation: 230).
As per claim 18, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 15, wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber is substantially flat (Fig. 2A; Alternate interpretation: Fig. 2B).
As per claim 21, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 15, wherein the mechanism for altering the internal pressure of the primary chamber involves expanding the volume of the primary chamber by stretching an impermeable material ([0035]).
As per claim 22, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 21, wherein the impermeable material is designed to rupture to allow flow of a fluid through an orifice ([0026], [0043]).
As per claim 23, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 15, wherein the shock absorber further comprises at least one fluid passage (204A; [0021]; Alternate interpretation: 204B; [0029]) that begins at one of the at least one orifices in the primary chamber and extends distally from the primary chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 8 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozar et al (US 2019/0071187).
As per claim 8, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4. Kozar et al discloses an alternate embodiment wherein the mechanism for altering the internal pressure of the primary chamber involves folding the at least one fluid passage ([0034]). 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 fuel tank of Kozar et al by forming the secondary portion as a folding assembly in order to provide a more predictable expanding motion.
As per claim 24, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 23, but does not disclose wherein another one of the at least one orifices does not connect to a fluid passage. In view of the applicant’s admission that Figures 19A-21B are obvious variants of one another, 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 bladder body of Kozar et al by providing a sealed perimeter portion in order to close off an access point used in construction of the fuel tank assembly.
13. Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozar et al (US 2019/0071187) in view of Burhans, Jr. et al (US 4,214,721).
As per claim 14, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber are substantially rigid.
Burhans, Jr et al discloses an aircraft collapsible fuel tank wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber are substantially rigid (Abstract). 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 fuel tank of Kozar et al installing the flexible bladder assembly inside of a hard-sided frame as taught by Burhans, Jr et al in order to protect the bladder assembly from damage (Burhans, Jr et al: Col. 1, lines 6-9).
As per claim 19, Kozar et al discloses the collapsible shock absorber of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber is substantially rigid.
Burhans, Jr et al discloses an aircraft collapsible fuel tank wherein at least one of a top surface or a bottom surface of the surrounding wall of the primary chamber is substantially rigid (Abstract). 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 fuel tank of Kozar et al installing the flexible bladder assembly inside of a hard-sided frame as taught by Burhans, Jr et al in order to protect the bladder assembly from damage (Burhans, Jr et al: Col. 1, lines 6-9).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Expansion chamber dampeners
Shaw et al (US 5,813,680).
Bac et al (US 2011/0095035).
Akiyama et al (US 2004/0060791).
Boschi (US 2,818,249).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571) 270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
STEPHEN M. BOWES IV
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights