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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Jan. 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 71-75, 77, 81, 82-87, 89-91, 93, 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrigan.
With respect to claim 71, Corrigan discloses an actuator (abstr., 0134), comprising a first sheet comprising a plurality of first openings, and a second sheet comprising a plurality of second openings (0134, Fig. 7), wherein the first and second sheets are stacked together such that the first and second openings are misaligned (0134, Fig. 7), and the actuator is configured to move from a first state to a second state (0139), wherein in the first state, out-of-the plane motion of the first and second sheets is permitted (0139, Fig. 7), and in the second state, the first and second sheets as well as the misaligned first and second openings are jammed together, restricting the out-of-place motion of the first and second sheets – one rigid sheet is created (0139).
The recitation “wherein the move from the first state to the second state comprises a rotation of the first sheet relative to the second sheet” relates to how the actuator functions when in use. Since Corrigan discloses all the structural elements of the actuator, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the actuator of Corrigan would perform as intended.
Corrigan does not state expressly that in the second state the first and second sheets are adhered together by an adhesive disposed on the surfaces of each of the first and second sheets facing each other such that the first and second sheets are jammed together, however, Corrigan discloses that in the second state the surfaces are jammed together by a mechanical adhesive (0113-0019). The instant specification discloses mechanical adhesives as adhesives suitable for the instant invention, such as Velcro or hook-in-loop adhesives, interlocking adhesives (par. [0114]). Corrigan discloses the first and second sheets including interlocking features or engagement features (0116-0119) corresponding to features of mechanical adhesives disclosed in the instant specification.
With respect to claim 72, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan discloses the stiffness of the actuator in the second state being at least 5 times the stiffness of the actuator in the first state (0092, 0093). The range of stiffness overlaps the range recited in claim 72; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 73, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71, wherein the first and second sheet comprise metal, paper, polymers.
As to claim 74, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71, wherein the first and second sheets have different thicknesses (0072).
With respect to claim 75, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71, wherein at least one of the first and second sheets has a nonuniform thickness (0073).
Regarding claim 77, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan discloses that in the second state the first and second sheets are adhered together by a mechanical adhesive disposed on the surfaces of each of the first and second sheets facing each other such that the first and second sheets are jammed together (0113-0019). The instant specification discloses mechanical adhesives as adhesives suitable for the instant invention, such as Velcro or hook-in-loop adhesives, interlocking adhesives (par. [0114]). Corrigan discloses the first and second sheets including interlocking features or engagement features (0116-0119) corresponding to features of mechanical adhesives disclosed in the instant specification.
As to claim 81, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan discloses that in the second state the first and second sheets are adhered together by a mechanical adhesive disposed on the surfaces of each of the first and second sheets facing each other such that the first and second sheets are jammed together (0113-0019). The instant specification discloses mechanical adhesives as adhesives suitable for the instant invention, such as Velcro or hook-in-loop adhesives, interlocking adhesives (par. [0114]). Corrigan discloses the first and second sheets including interlocking features or engagement features (0116-0119) corresponding to features of mechanical adhesives disclosed in the instant specification.
With respect to claim 82, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71, wherein the first sheet further comprises a plurality of third openings and the second sheet further comprises a plurality of fourth openings (Fig. 7), wherein the first and second sheets are stacked together such that at least one of the third and fourth openings are misaligned (Fig. 7), and the actuator is configured such that the misaligned third and fourth openings are capable of being jammed together independent of the misaligned first and second openings (0139, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 83, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. The lengths of the first openings are at least three times greater than the widths of the first openings, and the lengths of the second openings are at least three times greater than the widths of the second openings (Fig. 7). The ranges of widths and lengths overlap the ranges recited in claim 83; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 84, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 83, wherein the first openings are arranged to form a first pattern, and the second openings are arranged to form a second pattern (0134, 0140, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 85, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 84, wherein the first and second patterns comprise openings oriented parallel to each other (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 86, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 83. Corrigan discloses that elements 532 can be disc-shaped (0140, Fig. 7), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least one of the first or second openings comprise curved openings. Changes in shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 87, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 83. Corrigan discloses that elements 532 can be disc-shaped (0140, Fig. 7), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the openings 534 between elements 532 are configured to interlock with at least one of the second openings as changes in shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 89, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 84, wherein the first and second patterns are periodic (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 90, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 84, wherein the first and second openings are misaligned by an offset pitch (Fig. 7).
As to claim 91, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 84. Corrigan suggests various patterns of the openings (0140), and discloses an embodiment wherein at least one of the first and second patterns comprise a two-dimensional periodic array of alternating first regions of openings parallel to a first axis and second regions of openings parallel to a second axis, wherein the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (0179, 0180, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 93, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71, wherein the first and second sheets are arranged in a tube shape (0053).
As to claim 95, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan teaches a method of actuation comprising providing the actuator of claim 71 and actuating the actuator from the first state to the second state (0025).
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrigan, in view of Kenis et al. (US 2010/0022007 A1) (“Kenis”).
With respect to claim 76, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan discloses a porous sheet disposed between the first and second sheets (0068-0071, Fig. 1), but is silent with respect to the porous sheet being an extensible sheet. Kenis discloses an actuator wherein an elastic membrane separates layers of the actuator (abstr., 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the porous sheet between the first and second sheets of Corrigan as an extensible sheet as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice, extensible sheets being known in the art of actuators. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrigan, in view of Li et al. (WO 2018/175744 A1) (“Li”).
With respect to claim 88, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 83, but is silent with respect to a first plurality of scorings oriented perpendicular to the first openings and a second plurality of scorings oriented perpendicular to the second openings. Liu discloses an actuator comprising scorings perpendicular to the sheets (abstr., Fig. 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first plurality of scorings oriented perpendicular to the first openings and a second plurality of scorings oriented perpendicular to the second openings in the actuator of Corrigan as it is known in the art of actuators to include scorings in addition to openings in the sheets (Fig. 62).
Claim(s) 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrigan, in view of Soman et al. (US 9631171 B2) (“Soman”).
With respect to claim 92, Corrigan teaches the actuator of claim 71. Corrigan suggests a variety of patterns of openings on the first and second sheets (0140, Figs. 11-25). Corrigan is silent with respect to the actuator having a negative or zero Poisson’s ratio in the plane of the actuator. Soman discloses an auxetic biomaterial that includes a pattern such that the material has a negative Poisson’s ratio (abstr., col. 5, lines 27-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form the pattern of the sheets of the actuator of Corrigan as shown in Soman (col. 3, lines 54-61, Figs. 2A-2I), as the actuator of Corrigan has use in biomaterials (0026), and it is known in the art of biomaterials for the material to have a negative Poisson’s ratio.
Claim(s) 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrigan, in view of Kishida et al. (US 9283354 B2) (“Kishida”).
With respect to claim 94, Corrigan discloses the actuator of claim 93, but is silent with respect to the actuator further comprising a balloon disposed within the tube. Kishida discloses an actuator comprising a restricting member corresponding to the tube of the instant invention and a balloon disposed within the tube (abstr., col. 8, lines 31-54, col. 9, lines 50-54, col. 11, lines 8-29, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the actuator of Corrigan a balloon disposed within the tube as it is known in the art of actuators used in the medical area (Kishida, abstr.) to include a balloon inside a tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued Corrigan fails to teach or suggest the newly added limitation of claim 71 “wherein the move from the first state to the second state comprises a rotation of the first sheet relative to the second sheet.” The Applicant argued that “rotated patterns” in Corrigan are fundamentally different from “a rotation of the first sheet relative to the second sheet.” The Applicant relied on par. [0096] of the instant specification as disclosing the new feature. Par. [0096] discloses that when a tensile force is applied to a stack of four kirigami sheets with openings perpendicular to the long axis of the actuator, the tensile force applied along an axis perpendicular to the openings and parallel to the long axis of the actuator causes the sheets to rotate and the openings of the adjacent sheets jam together.
The Examiner notes claim 71 recites “the first and second sheets are stacked together such that at least one of the first and second openings are misaligned.” It appears the embodiment of claim 71 is different from the embodiment discussed in par. [0096] of the instant specification, wherein openings in respective sheets are parallel. Nevertheless, although the openings in the sheets of claim 71 are misaligned, the claim does not recite the extent of the rotation of the first sheet with respect to the second sheet, thus, since Corrigan discloses all the structural elements of the actuator, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the actuator of Corrigan would perform as intended.
Additionally, the Applicant discussed rejections of claims 76, 88, 92, and 94, wherein Corrigan is combined with other references, arguing that the secondary references do not teach or suggest the newly added feature of claim 71.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783