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
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the amended language does not clearly define the geometry of the flexible struts (204). The claim describes each “distal end” as extending between the base or platform and the intermediate elbow (222). It is unclear whether “distal end” refers to the terminal attachment region of the strut or the entire strut portion extending to the elbow (222). Furthermore, “a second direction opposite the first direction” does not clearly identify the required directional relationship. It appears applicant is defining the two strut portions extending in exactly opposite spatial directions which is inaccurate and not possible. If the struts extend in the opposite direction, then how does the strut extend entirely from the base to the platform? The description of the elected embodiments, in the specification, does not clearly resolve this distinction. The struts shown in the figures (particularly figures 11A-13A) do not extend in opposite directions as claimed. The specification’s description of struts bending back toward the platform does not clearly resolve which directional relationship the claim requires. Accordingly, the claimed extent of each distal end and the required orientation of the strut portions relative to the intermediate elbow are unclear, leaving the metes and bounds of claim 1 indefinite. These ambiguities leave uncertain which strut configuration fall within claim 1 and therefore the scope of the claims can’t be determined. The examiner has no suggestion as to what applicant is trying to claim.
Claim 18 is indefinite because the amended language does not clearly define the geometry of the flexible struts (204). Claim 18 recites each flexible strut as including a “lower distal end” extending from the first end to an intermediate elbow and an “upper distal end” extending from the intermediate elbow to the second end. It is unclear whether each “distal end” identifies a terminal attachment region of the strut or an entire strut portion extending between an end of the support structure and the intermediate elbow. Furthermore, the limitation “a second direction opposite the first direction” does not clearly identify the required directional relationship between the two strut portions. It appears applicant is defining the two strut portions extending in exactly opposite spatial directions which is inaccurate and not possible. If the struts extend in the opposite direction, then how does the strut extend entirely from the base to the platform?. The description of the elected embodiments, in the specification, does not clearly resolve this distinction. The struts shown in the figures (particularly figures 11A-13A) do not extend in opposite directions as claimed. The specification’s description of struts bending back toward the platform does not clearly resolve which directional relationship the claim requires. Accordingly, the claimed extent of each distal end and the required orientation of the strut portions relative to the intermediate elbow are unclear, leaving the metes and bounds of claim 18 indefinite. These ambiguities leave uncertain which strut configuration fall within claim 18 and therefore the scope of the claims can’t be determined. The examiner has no suggestion as to what applicant is trying to claim
In claims 2-4 and 19, “compressive strain rate” within successive load ranges is indefinite because of the ambiguity about what rate is measured and how the ranges are selected.
In claims 5,8,9 and 20, the phrase “a ratio of energy storage relative to a linear spring rate” is unclear and indefinite inasmuch as energy and spring rate are different physical quantities. The amendment compares energy storage with a linear spring rate. Energy has units of force x distance. Spring rate has units of force/distance. Their ratio does not produce the dimensionless linearity values recited.
In claims 6 and 7, the phrase “defined by a ratio of returned energy to input energy per compression cycle” is unclear and indefinite. Any measurement ambiguity needs a specific basis.
Prior Art Rejection
No prior-art rejection is made at this time for the claims because ambiguities identified in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) prevent a sufficiently reliable interpretation of the claim for comparison with the prior art. Specifically, see the rejection above with regard to the language “a second direction opposite the first direction” in both of the independent claim. Applying the prior art would therefore require considerable speculation concerning the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Gross (US 2021/0186151) remains the closest prior art (see the last rejection) but fails to teach the upper distal end extending along a second direction opposite the first direction from the intermediate elbow to the platform BUT applicant’s support structure, particularly the elected embodiment, also doesn’t have this limitation (see the rejection above for further details).
With regard to the new limitations added to the claims, see the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (i.e. 35 USC 112(b)) presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 57-1272-4888. 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.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556
Prosecution Insights