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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 50, 55-57, 60, 62 and 64-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia (US 5,524,641) in view of Webb (US 3,425,061), Green et al. (US 2007/0029690), Newton et al. (US 2012/0174282) and Toronjo (US 9,629,397).
Regarding claim 50, Battaglia teaches a user-worn appliance to protect against bodily injuries (“shield system for protecting a curved object”) (Col. 1, Lines 10-11) The appliance includes a plurality of domes attached to a base vest to protect various parts of the body including the shoulders (Col. 2, Lines 48-51) and the base vest is composed of a variety of panels, including two shoulder panels, two chest panels, and a back panel (“comprising at least one flexible pad”) (Col. 4, Lines 27-29). The panels of the base vest include a core having a honeycomb structure made of foam as the core of the panels protected on both sides by a material 26 (“a spacing ridge projecting at an angle from a first major surface of the pad for providing a spacing between the first major surface and a shield shell" & “a support ridge projecting from the first major surface of the and extending transverse to the spacing ridge”) (Col. 5, Lines 6-8; Fig. 5, #28). Battaglia additionally teaches an example foam for forming the core of the panel as being a crosslinked polyolefin foam and the foam core is open ended to allow air to flow through it (Col. 5, Lines 2-4).
Battaglia is silent with respect to the honeycomb structure being tapered so that the distal end of the structure is narrower than the proximal portion, proximal to the panels.
Webb teaches a helmet with an outer shell provides impact deflection and dispersion (Col. 1, Lines 36-42). The helmets are provided with an outer shell having a plurality of ribs (Col. 2, Lines 20-28; Fig. 2). The ribs may be provided with a step like configuration, or a truncated triangular configuration, as illustrated in Figs. 8-9 in order to increasingly resist crushing or deformation in order to absorb more energy (Col. 2, Lines 59-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the honeycomb structure of Battaglia in a truncated triangular configuration in order to increasingly resist crushing or deformation in order to absorb more energy as taught by Webb.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the appliances comprising a dilatant material.
Green teaches energy absorbent impact systems designed for the protection of humans, animals or objects from damage by impact (Paragraph [0001]). The systems are utilized in headwear such as helmets and body garments (Paragraph [0055]). The systems include a composite material which is elastic, exhibits a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation and is self-supporting (Paragraph [0012]-[0013]). The composite material is formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed (Paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the honey-comb structures of Battaglia from the composite materials of Green which are formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed and which provide a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the appliances comprising two support ridges wherein each support ridge comprises a flexure region arranged to unbend independently of other flexure regions.
Newton teaches a garment having a base layer and a flexible layer (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0070]). The base layer may be designed as any suitable garment for an activity, such as upper body or lower body garments, or may be designed for a particular activity, including hockey, football, or any other sport (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0071]). The flexible layer may be formed from various materials including a polyolefin material (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0073]). There may be various portions of the flexible material located on the garment to provide support to the wearer’s body including the back and the shoulders (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0077]-[0078]). The flexible layers may be provided with voids in a lattice pattern to provide areas of increased breathability (Pg. 5, Paragraph [0093]). The lattice patterns may be provided in a variety of patterns as illustrated in figures 4-5 (honey comb pattern) and 11-12 (auxetic lattice pattern).
Toronjo teaches garments, padding, bags or other products configured to be worn or carried on the body (Col. 1, Lines 14-16). The articles of apparel are provided with a base layer and an auxetic layer coupled to the base layer defining a repeating pattern of voids (Col. 1, Lines 55-60). The segments forming the cells of the auxetic layer may comprise a foam material such as polyethylene (Col. 5, Lines 50-67). One application of the auxetic structures includes the arrangement of the auxetic structure in a skull cap as illustrated in figure 4 (Col. 9, Lines 15-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the auxetic foam structure of Battaglia in view of Newton which may be formed for the protection of the head with the geodesic domes such that the vest of Battaglia is formed as a skull cap as taught by Toronjo which additionally teaches the use of cells of foam material in an auxetic shape. The examiner also notes that the formation of the shape into a skull cap teaches the limitation of an energy absorbing helmet liner. It additionally would have to form the core of the panels of Battaglia such that the lattice pattern of the cores to provide for increased air flow are formed as either the honeycomb structure or a lattice of an auxetic pattern as taught by Newton which also teaches the use of a polyolefin material for providing breathability in garments for sports including football and hockey. Lastly, as shown in figures 1a and 1b of Toronjo, the auxetic lattice structures include bent regions which unbend independently of the other bent regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 55, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50. As discussed above, the panels of the base vest include a core having a honeycomb structure made of foam as the core of the panels protected on both sides by a material 26 (“a second spacing ridge, wherein the support ridge projects from the second spacing ridge to couple the spacing ridges together”).
Regarding claim 56, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50. As discussed above, the panels of the base vest include a core having a honeycomb structure made of foam as the core of the panels protected on both sides by a material 26 (“a second support ridge projecting from the spacing ridge”).
Regarding claim 57, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 56. As discussed above, the panels of the base vest include a core having a honeycomb structure made of foam as the core of the panels protected on both sides by a material 26 (“a second spacing ridge, wherein the first support ridge projects from the second spacing ridge to couple the spacing ridges together, and wherein the first and second support ridge, and the first and second spacing ridge are arranged to define a closed shape on the first major surface of the pad, wherein in response to bending of the pad, the shape defined by the distal ends of the ridges differs in both shape and surface area from the closed shape”).
Regarding claim 60, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50. The honeycomb extends across the panels of which is a part of and therefore acts as a meandering pattern across the base vest (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 62, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50. As illustrated in figures 4-5, the honeycomb structure includes a top and bottom cover (“comprising a shield shell”).
Regarding claim 64, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 62. The appliance may further be applied as a helmet (Col. 3, Lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 65, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 62. As discussed above, there may be a variety of panels on the base vest.
Regarding claim 66, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 65. s illustrated in figure 1, the panels are configured to align and protect the areas of the body to which the panels correspond to (“the shell is adapted to fit an object to be protected to align the shell with respect to the object so selected regions of the shell align with corresponding selected regions of the object”).
Regarding claims 67-68, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 66. As discussed above, two panels are arranged to cover the chest but are separated by the zipper (“at least two pads, coupled together, and adapted to fit into the shell so the pads are arranged adjacent two spatially separated regions of the object” & “the at least two pads , comprise a first pad arranged to lie between a first anatomical region and a corresponding first region of the shield, and a second pad arranged to lie between a second anatomical region and a corresponding second region of the shell”) (Fig. 1).
Claims 51-54 and 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia (US 5,524,641) in view of Webb (US 3,425,061), Green et al. (US 2007/0029690), Newton et al. (US 2012/0174282) and Toronjo (US 9,629,397) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2003/0088900).
Regarding claim 51, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the honeycomb structure further including sections which have a higher height than other sections.
Cho teaches a shin guard includes a flexible construction which is capable of implementing good ventilation and easier sweat exhaust (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0002]). The shin guard includes a mesh structure with a plurality of ventilation holes (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0017]; Fig. 2). The mesh structure includes protruding portions (3a) which protrude higher than other portions in order to apply easier ventilation through the spaced between the mesh (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0019; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the honeycomb structure with protruding portions having a protruding height greater than other portions of the honeycomb structure in order to provide enhanced ventilation to the appliances as taught by Cho.
Regarding claims 52-54, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 51.
Battaglia is additionally silent with respect to the core of the panels comprising a flexure region adapted to unbend in the event that the pad is curved about an axis aligned to inhibit strain in the support ridge from causing deflection of the spacing ridge and the unbending results in the ridges partially straightening (Claim 52), that flexure region being operable to unbend more in a distal portion of the flexure region, distal from the first major surface, than in a proximal portion proximal to the first major surface (Claim 53), and being configured so that unbending of the flexure region causes the support ridge to at least partially straighten (Claim 54).
However, the applicant's specification lists polymer foams and a dilatant material as required by the claim, as an acceptable material for the flexible pads of applicant's invention (Applicant's Specification, Pg. 1, Lines 28-32) and due to Battaglia having a similar structure as compared to applicant's structure being a closed shape formed from the first and second spacing ridges and the first and second support ridges extending from the spacing ridges, one would identify the core of the panels having a lattice or a honeycomb structure to intrinsically have a flexure region adapted to unbend in the event that the pad is curved about an axis aligned to inhibit strain in the support ridge from causing deflection of the spacing ridge and the unbending results in the ridges partially straightening, that flexure region being operable to unbend more in a distal portion of the flexure region, distal from the first major surface, than in a proximal portion proximal to the first major surface, and being configured so that unbending of the flexure region causes the support ridge to at least partially straighten and the closed shape defined by the distal ends of the ridges expands and the shape defined by the distal ends of the ridges differs in both shape and surface area from the closed shape. Additionally, the overlap of materials and the structure as taught by Battaglia and Green would additionally teach the limitation of “energy absorbing.”
Regarding claim 58, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 52.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the lattice of the cores comprising a flexure region adapted to unbend in the event that the pad is curved about an axis aligned to inhibit strain in the support ridge from causing deflection of the spacing ridge and the unbending results in the ridges partially straightening.
However, the applicant's specification lists polymer foam, and the claim requires a dilatant material, as an acceptable material for the flexible pads of applicant's invention (Applicant's Specification, Pg. 1, Lines 28-32) and due to Battaglia having a similar structure as compared to applicant's structure being a spacing ridge and a support ridge extending from the spacing ridge, one would identify the panels of the base vest having a lattice structure having the auxetic pattern to intrinsically have a flexure region adapted to unbend in the event that the pad is curved about an axis aligned to inhibit strain in the support ridge from causing deflection of the spacing ridge and the unbending results in the ridges partially straightening.
Regarding claim 59, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 52.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the lattice of the cores arranged to enable ridge displacement that increases with distance from the surface of the domes.
However, the applicant's specification lists polymer foam, and the claim requires a dilatant material, as an acceptable material for the flexible pads of applicant's invention (Applicant's Specification, Pg. 1, Lines 28-32) and due to Battaglia having a similar structure as compared to applicant's structure being a spacing ridge and a support ridge extending from the spacing ridge, one would identify the panels of the base vest having a lattice structure having the auxetic pattern to intrinsically have a flexure region to enable ridge displacement that increases with distance from the surface of the domes.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia (US 5,524,641) in view of Webb (US 3,425,061), Green et al. (US 2007/0029690), Newton et al. (US 2012/0174282) and Toronjo (US 9,629,397) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Rohrbach et al. (US 2009/0057357).
Regarding claim 70, Battaglia teaches the appliances as discussed above with respect to claim 50.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the appliances being configured for use with an electronic device.
Rohrbach teaches auxetic structures being applied to a variety of structures including bands and braces (Col. 12, Lines 1-5), such as an armband for holding an electronic device during activities such as exercising (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the appliances of Battaglia such that they are in the form of armbands for holding an electronic device as taught by Rohrbach.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia (US 5,524,641) in view of Webb (US 3,425,061), Green et al. (US 2007/0029690), Newton et al. (US 2012/0174282) and Toronjo (US 9,629,397).
Regarding claim 71, Battaglia teaches a user-worn appliance to protect against bodily injuries (“shield system for protecting a curved object”) (Col. 1, Lines 10-11) The appliance includes a plurality of domes attached to a base vest to protect various parts of the body including the shoulders (Col. 2, Lines 48-51) and the base vest is composed of a variety of panels, including two shoulder panels, two chest panels, and a back panel (“comprising at least one flexible pad”) (Col. 4, Lines 27-29). The panels of the base vest include a core having a honeycomb structure made of foam as the core of the panels protected on both sides by a material 26 (“a spacing ridge projecting at an angle from a first major surface of the pad for providing a spacing between the first major surface and a shield shell" & “a support ridge projecting from the first major surface of the and extending transverse to the spacing ridge”) (Col. 5, Lines 6-8; Fig. 5, #28). Battaglia additionally teaches an example foam for forming the core of the panel as being a crosslinked polyolefin foam and the foam core is open ended to allow air to flow through it (Col. 5, Lines 2-4).
Battaglia is silent with respect to the honeycomb structure being tapered so that the distal end of the structure is narrower than the proximal portion, proximal to the panels.
Webb teaches a helmet with an outer shell provides impact deflection and dispersion (Col. 1, Lines 36-42). The helmets are provided with an outer shell having a plurality of ribs (Col. 2, Lines 20-28; Fig. 2). The ribs may be provided with a step like configuration, or a truncated triangular configuration, as illustrated in Figs. 8-9 in order to increasingly resist crushing or deformation in order to absorb more energy (Col. 2, Lines 59-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the honeycomb structure of Battaglia in a truncated triangular configuration in order to increasingly resist crushing or deformation in order to absorb more energy as taught by Webb.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the appliances comprising a dilatant material.
Green teaches energy absorbent impact systems designed for the protection of humans, animals or objects from damage by impact (Paragraph [0001]). The systems are utilized in headwear such as helmets and body garments (Paragraph [0055]). The systems include a composite material which is elastic, exhibits a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation and is self-supporting (Paragraph [0012]-[0013]). The composite material is formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed (Paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the honey-comb structures of Battaglia from the composite materials of Green which are formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed and which provide a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation.
Battaglia is silent with respect to the appliances comprising two support ridges wherein each support ridge comprises a flexure region arranged to unbend independently of other flexure regions.
Newton teaches a garment having a base layer and a flexible layer (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0070]). The base layer may be designed as any suitable garment for an activity, such as upper body or lower body garments, or may be designed for a particular activity, including hockey, football, or any other sport (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0071]). The flexible layer may be formed from various materials including a polyolefin material (Pg. 3, Paragraph [0073]). There may be various portions of the flexible material located on the garment to provide support to the wearer’s body including the back and the shoulders (Pg. 3, Paragraphs [0077]-[0078]). The flexible layers may be provided with voids in a lattice pattern to provide areas of increased breathability (Pg. 5, Paragraph [0093]). The lattice patterns may be provided in a variety of patterns as illustrated in figures 4-5 (honey comb pattern) and 11-12 (auxetic lattice pattern).
Toronjo teaches garments, padding, bags or other products configured to be worn or carried on the body (Col. 1, Lines 14-16). The articles of apparel are provided with a base layer and an auxetic layer coupled to the base layer defining a repeating pattern of voids (Col. 1, Lines 55-60). The segments forming the cells of the auxetic layer may comprise a foam material such as polyethylene (Col. 5, Lines 50-67). One application of the auxetic structures includes the arrangement of the auxetic structure in a skull cap as illustrated in figure 4 (Col. 9, Lines 15-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the auxetic foam structure of Battaglia in view of Newton which may be formed for the protection of the head with the geodesic domes such that the vest of Battaglia is formed as a skull cap as taught by Toronjo which additionally teaches the use of cells of foam material in an auxetic shape. The examiner also notes that the formation of the shape into a skull cap teaches the limitation of an energy absorbing helmet liner. It additionally would have to form the core of the panels of Battaglia such that the lattice pattern of the cores to provide for increased air flow are formed as either the honeycomb structure or a lattice of an auxetic pattern as taught by Newton which also teaches the use of a polyolefin material for providing breathability in garments for sports including football and hockey. Lastly, as shown in figures 1a and 1b of Toronjo, the auxetic lattice structures include bent regions which unbend independently of the other bent regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 50-69 and 71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 50-52, 56-64, 66 and 70 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,812 in view of Green et al. (US 2007/0029690).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 50 of the instant application requires “A shield system for protecting a curved object, the system comprising at least one flexible pad comprising: a spacing ridge projecting at an angle from a first major surface of the pad for providing a spacing between the first major surface and a shield shell, wherein the spacing ridge is tapered so that the distal end of the spacing ridge is narrower than the proximal portion, proximal to the first major surface of the pad; and a support ridge projecting from the first major surface and extending transverse to the spacing ridge.”
Claim 50 of US Patent ‘812 teaches each of the limitations as discussed above with the exception of the flexible pads comprising a dilatant material.
Green teaches energy absorbent impact systems designed for the protection of humans, animals or objects from damage by impact (Paragraph [0001]). The systems are utilized in headwear such as helmets and body garments (Paragraph [0055]). The systems include a composite material which is elastic, exhibits a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation and is self-supporting (Paragraph [0012]-[0013]). The composite material is formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed (Paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the flexible pads of US Patent ‘812 from the composite materials of Green which are formed from a first polymer-based elastic material and a second polymer-based material which exhibits dilatancy in the absence of the first polymer-based material and is entrapped in a matrix of the first polymer wherein the composite material is foamed and which provide a resistive load under deformation which increases with the rate of deformation.
Claim 50 of U.S. Patent additionally requires the spacing ridges and the support ridges to have an auxetic geometry, which causes the flexure regions of spacing ridges to unbend independently of other flexure regions.
Furthermore, the limitations of claims 52-69 and 71 as required by the instant application are taught by claims 50-52, 56-64, 66 and 70 of Patent ‘812.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-13, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 50 and 71 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 6-13, applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the amendment to claim 1 requiring at least two support ridges which each have flexure regions arranged to unbend independently of other flexure regions. The honeycomb structure fails to achieve this limitation which is illustrated in figure 3B of the instant application.
The examiner concedes in that the cited references of Battaglia, Webb and Green fail to teach this limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Newton and Toronjo as discussed above. Even further, the figure presented in 3B appears to be an auxetic geometry and Toronjo teaches an identical geometry and the stretching of this geometry results in the “flexure regions” unbending independently of each other (See Figures 1A and 1B of Toronjo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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 V EWALD can be reached at 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783