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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5-11, 13, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCluskey et al (US2018/0264718A1) in view of Yokoyama et al (US6,190,756B1).
With regards to claim 1, McCluskey discloses a constant force compression construct formed from a plurality of compressible layers formed by interconnected flexible struts which form air cells (i.e., a baffle, which is considered insulating as it comprises air cells), comprising a first surface (Sf1) depicted as including a plurality of interconnected struts (St1) that define a plurality of first apertures through the first surface (Sf1), and a second surface (Sf2) at least partially spaced from the first surface (Sf1) and having at least one common terminal connection point (TC) with the first surface (Sf1), the first surface (Sf1) comprising a plurality of second interconnected struts (St2) that define a plurality of second apertures through the second surface (Sf2) (McCluskey: para. [0002]-[0005]; Fig. 8). The construct further includes one or more third struts (St3) disposed between the first surface (Sf1) and the second surface (Sf2) and coupled to both the first surface (Sf1) and the second surface (Sf2), such that the third struts (St3) are located within a cylindrical cavity defined by the first surface (Sf1) and (Sf2) (McCluskey: Fig. 8). It is additionally noted that the second surface is depicted as a curvilinear surface (McCluskey:
PNG
media_image1.png
237
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8). An annotated version of a portion of Figure 8 depicting these structural features is given below.
As the structure of McCluskey is a constant force compression construct, it is capable of being deformed from a first state to a second state under a compression force to constrict a volume of the cavity and wherein the first surface and the second surface are capable of returning to the first state when the compression force is released (McCluskey: para. [0004]). In addition, the structure of McCluskey may be incorporated into, for example, a helmet pad (i.e., an article of clothing) (McCluskey: para. [0017]). It is additionally noted that the limitation “wherein the insulative baffle is configured to trap air within the cavity to provide increased insulation when covered by a material” is implicitly met by the cavities of McCluskey (i.e., any cavity is capable of trapping in air to provide increased insulation when covered). McCluskey further discloses wrapping its structure in a separately made body-contact cover (i.e., a layer of material is configured to cover the insulative baffle) (McCluskey: para. [0061]). Further, the limitation “the insulative baffle comprises a flexible structure configured to deform and recover” is met by McCluskey, as McClusky discloses its construct as an improved material which is “flexible and “can restore after compression” to an “original configuration” (i.e., a flexible structure configured to deform and recover) (McCluskey: para. [0004]-[0005]).
In addition, since the cavities of McCluskey are capable of trapping air, whey are also capable of trapping air to provide thermal insulation when incorporated into an article of clothing.
McCluskey does not appear to disclose the first surface as rectangular, or the second surface as, more specifically, a semi-circular curvilinear surface, such that the construct comprises a half-column shape.
Yokoyama is directed to a connected hollow structure for packaging member having a half-column shape formed of a first rectangular surface and a second semi-circular curvilinear surface (Yokoyama: col. 56, lines 21-53; Fig. 72). Yokoyama teaches that the half-column shape of its connected hollow structure combines the benefits of a flat surface which enables improved handling during storage and transportation, with the benefits of a cylindrical surface which has improved cushioning and elasticity for packaging cylindrical articles (Yokoyama: col. 46, lines 53-57; col. 56, lines 21-53). McCluskey and Yokoyama are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of compressible, hollow packaging structures formed from interconnected members. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adopted the half-column shape of McCluskey for the overall shape of the construct of McCluskey in order to provide a combination of improved handling, cushioning, and elasticity (Yokoyama: col. 46, lines 53-57; col. 56, lines 21-53).
With regards to claim 5, the plurality of first interconnected structs are depicted as forming a lattice structure (i.e., defining a lattice structure) (McCluskey: Figs. 8 and 9).
With regards to claim 6, the plurality of second interconnected structs are depicted as forming a lattice structure (i.e., defining a lattice structure) (McCluskey: Figs. 8 and 9).
With regards to claim 7, the plurality of third interconnected structs are depicted as forming a lattice structure (i.e., defining a lattice structure) (McCluskey: Figs. 8 and 9).
With regards to claim 8, the construct (i.e., including each of the first and second surfaces) is formed by additive manufacturing (McCluskey: para. [0015]; claim 11). However, the claim language “one or more of the first surface or the second surface is at least partially formed using additive manufacturing” constitutes product-by-process language. Such language does not limit the claimed product to the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied by such steps, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the claims are directed to an insulative baffle, and McCluskey suggests such a product.
With regards to claim 9, McCluskey discloses that an additional body-contact cover (i.e., a first layer) may be separately made and joined to the outside of the construct to form, for example, an outer casing such as a clamshell casing (i.e., the first layer is disposed to cover the entirety of the construct, which would include at least a portion of the first surface) (McCluskey: para. [0061]-[0062]; Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 10, McCluskey discloses that an additional body-contact cover (i.e., a second layer) may be separately made and joined to the outside of the construct to form, for example, an outer casing such as a clamshell casing (i.e., the second layer is disposed to cover the entirety of the construct, which would include at least a portion of the second surface) (McCluskey: para. [0061]-[0062]; Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 11, it is noted that the phrase “a configuration of the first interconnected struts, the second interconnect struts, and the third struts are tunable to control a rigidity of the insulative baffle” is rather broad, in that, technically, any material has a predetermined rigidity, and thus the rigidity of the first, second, and third struts are tunable in that multiple materials of different rigidities may be selected (McCluskey: Fig. 8). Furthermore, as any object can be broken, it is submitted that each of the first, second, and third struts are capable of being broken (i.e., having their rigidity tuned to control the overall rigidity of the baffle) (McCluskey: Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 13, McCluskey discloses a constant force compression construct formed from a plurality of compressible layers formed by interconnected flexible struts which form air cells (i.e., a baffle, which is considered insulating as it comprises air cells), comprising a first surface (Sf1) depicted as including a plurality of interconnected struts (St1) forming a lattice (i.e., the first surface comprises a lattice) and a second surface (Sf2) at least partially spaced from the first surface (Sf1) and having at least one common terminal connection point (TC) with the first surface (Sf1), the first surface (Sf1) comprising a plurality of second interconnected struts (St2) which define at least one hexagonal cavity therebetween (McCluskey: para. [0002]-[0005]; Fig. 8). An annotated version of a portion of Figure 8
PNG
media_image1.png
237
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
depicting these structural features is given below.
As the structure of McCluskey is a constant force compression construct, it is capable of being deformed from a first state to a second state under a compression force to constrict a volume of the cavity and wherein the first surface and the second surface are capable of returning to the first state when the compression force is released (McCluskey: para. [0004]). It is additionally noted that the limitation “wherein the insulative baffle is configured to trap air within the cavity to provide increased insulation when covered by a material” is implicitly met by the cavities of McCluskey (i.e., any cavity is capable of trapping in air to provide increased insulation when covered). McCluskey further discloses wrapping its structure in a separately made body-contact cover (i.e., a layer of material is configured to cover the insulative baffle) (McCluskey: para. [0061]). Further, the limitation “the insulative baffle comprises a flexible structure configured to deform and recover” is met by McCluskey, as McClusky discloses its construct as an improved mater which is “flexible and “can restore after compression” to an “original configuration” (i.e., a flexible structure configured to deform and recover) (McCluskey: para. [0004]-[0005]).
In addition, since the cavities of McCluskey are capable of trapping air, whey are also capable of trapping air to provide thermal insulation when incorporated into an article of clothing.
McCluskey does not appear to disclose the first surface as rectangular, or the second surface as, more specifically, a semi-circular curvilinear surface, such that the construct comprises a half-column shape.
Yokoyama is directed to a connected hollow structure for packaging member having a half-column shape formed of a first rectangular surface and a second semi-circular curvilinear surface (Yokoyama: col. 56, lines 21-53; Fig. 72). Yokoyama teaches that the half-column shape of its connected hollow structure combines the benefits of a flat surface which enables improved handling during storage and transportation, with the benefits of a cylindrical surface which has improved cushioning and elasticity for packaging cylindrical articles (Yokoyama: col. 46, lines 53-57; col. 56, lines 21-53). McCluskey and Yokoyama are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of compressible, hollow packaging structures formed from interconnected members. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adopted the half-column shape of McCluskey for the overall shape of the construct of McCluskey in order to provide a combination of improved handling, cushioning, and elasticity (Yokoyama: col. 46, lines 53-57; col. 56, lines 21-53).
With regards to claim 17, the construct (i.e., including each of the first and second surfaces) is formed by additive manufacturing (McCluskey: para. [0015]; claim 11). However, the claim language “one or more of the first surface or the second surface is at least partially formed using additive manufacturing” constitutes product-by-process language. Such language does not limit the claimed product to the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied by such steps, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the claims are directed to an insulative baffle, and McCluskey suggests such a product.
With regards to claim 18, McCluskey discloses that an additional body-contact cover (i.e., a first layer) may be separately made and joined to the outside of the construct to form, for example, an outer casing such as a clamshell casing (i.e., the first layer is disposed to cover the entirety of the construct, which would include at least a portion of the first surface) (McCluskey: para. [0061]-[0062]; Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 19, McCluskey discloses that an additional body-contact cover (i.e., a second layer) may be separately made and joined to the outside of the construct to form, for example, an outer casing such as a clamshell casing (i.e., the second layer is disposed to cover the entirety of the construct, which would include at least a portion of the second surface) (McCluskey: para. [0061]-[0062]; Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 20, it is noted that the phrase “a configuration of first interconnected struts, second interconnect struts, and third struts are tunable to control a rigidity of the insulative baffle” is rather broad, in that, technically, any material has a predetermined rigidity, and thus the rigidity of any first, second, and third struts are tunable in that multiple materials of different rigidities may be selected (McCluskey: Fig. 8). Furthermore, as any object can be broken, it is submitted that each of the first, second, and third struts are capable of being broken (i.e., having their rigidity tuned to control the overall rigidity of the baffle) (McCluskey: Fig. 8). It is noted that the claimed first interconnected struts, second interconnect struts, and third struts are interpreted as inclusive of any first grouping of interconnected struts, any second grouping of interconnected struts, and any third grouping of struts. It is additionally noted that, per the present specification, such struts are located within a lattice (i.e., as best understood from the present specification, any lattice has a first grouping of struts, a second grouping of interconnect struts, and third struts, as a structure with no struts cannot logically be considered to be a lattice).
With regards to claim 21, the structure of McCluskey may be incorporated into, for example, a helmet pad (i.e., an article of clothing) (McCluskey: para. [0017]).
With regards to claim 22, the structure of McCluskey may be incorporated into, for example, a helmet pad (i.e., a garment) (McCluskey: para. [0017]).
With regards to claim 28, when the structure of McCluskey is incorporated into an article, technically, each surface is oriented towards every side of a given article (i.e., by virtue of the structure being located inside the article). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the claim uses the term “when,” meaning that the present claim language is directed to an intended use, and not positively reciting an orientation of the structure of McCluskey. Since the structure of McCluskey has the features of the present claims, it is expected to meet the claimed intended use (i.e., to be capable of having a planar first surface oriented toward an interior side of the article and a semi-circular curvilinear second surface oriented toward an exterior side of the article) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 29, the article is an article of clothing (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 30, the article is an article of clothing (i.e., a garment) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 31, the rectangular, planar first surface is technically oriented towards every surface of the garment, and therefore it is oriented toward an interior of the garment, and similarly, the semi-circular curvilinear surface is oriented toward every layer of the garment, including an outer layer of the garment (see above discussion).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCluskey et al in view of Yokoyama et al as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Hancock et al (US2017/0105461A1).
With regards to claim 23, McCluskey and Yokoyama teach an article as applied to claim 13 above (see above discussion). However, McCluskey and Yokoyama do not specifically teach an article in the form of a blanket.
Hancock is directed to an impact reduction apparel and impact absorbing liner including a plurality of branch members and holes (i.e., a lattice structure), wherein, the liner may be used to form, for example, a blanket (Hancock: para. [0087]; claims 1 and 5). Specifically, Hancock teaches that it is well-known in the art to use such impact absorbing structures in blankets for the purpose of providing impact resistance (Hancock: para. [0087]-[0089]). McCluskey, Yokoyama, and Hancock are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of impact absorbing structures for apparel. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the article of McCluskey and Yokoyama, which is taught as having impact resistance, into a blanket, in order to provide impact resistance to said blanket (see above discussion). Alternatively, since incorporating impact resistance structures into blankets is well-known in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the impact-resistant article of McCluskey and Yokoyama into a blanket (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that McCluskey does not disclose a cavity configured to trap air to provide thermal insulation when incorporated into an article and covered by material. Applicant indicates that the mapped structure is an open-cell lattice. Applicant argues that McCluskey only discloses trapping air or fluid in a separate embodiment including a fluid-impermeable outer shell, which functions as a working medium for mechanical resistance, and not a thermally insulative air cavity. These arguments are not found persuasive as the open-cell lattice structure of McCluskey does not mean that the structure of McCluskey is incapable of trapping air in the claimed manner to provide thermal insulation. The present drawings (and claims) describe and open-cell lattice structure. It is unclear how, therefore, the open-cell lattice structure of the claimed invention would trap air in the claimed manner, yet the structure of McCluskey would not be capable of such. As best understood, to “trap” air to provide thermal insulation does not necessarily imply an impermeable structure, and instead, the mere existence of a lattice structure serves to trap air to at least some extent (i.e., as any lattice structure reduces airflow to at least some extent). In addition, that McCluskey incorporates air for the purpose of serving as a working medium does not mean that the incorporated air would not provide thermal insulation. With respect to the structure of McCluskey, the air used as a working medium would still provide thermal insulation (as air itself provides thermal insulation).
On page 7, Applicant argues that the missing limitation cannot be provided by inherency, and McCluskey does not disclose trapping air in its open lattice. Applicant argues that the Office Action assumes that any cavity under a covering will provide some insulation. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive as it does not point to a structural difference between the claimed invention and McCluskey. The Office Action assumes that an article having the structure of the claimed invention (such as the structure of McCluskey and Yokoyama) would function in the claimed manner. Since McCluskey discloses the same air-trapping structure as Applicant’s invention, it is expected to trap air in the same manner.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that Yokoyama and Hancock do not cure the argued deficiencies. These arguments are not found persuasive as McCluskey teaches the claimed structure necessary for the claimed air trapping and thermal insulation, and therefore, it is not deficient, as argued by Applicant.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the present specification expressly teaches the claimed insulating function and context. This argument is not found persuasive as the claimed function need not be expressly disclosed in the prior art in order to be rendered obvious. Since McCluskey teaches the structure necessary for trapping air and providing thermal insulation, the article of McCluskey is expected to trap air and provide thermal insulation in the claimed manner (regardless of whether or not such function is explicitly stated by McCluskey).
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the rejection lacks a persuasive reasoned combination. Applicant argues that even if McCluskey, Yokoyama, and Hancock are analogous at a high level, they address materially different problems, and do not address Applicant’s problem. Applicant argues that the action does not provide why a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant additionally argues that Hancock’s rationale is unpersuasive, as it is directed to impact-reducing and protective structures, as opposed to thermal insulation. These arguments are not found persuasive since, technically, prior art which are analogous at a high level are still analogous. In addition, the prior art of record need not explicitly mention Applicant’s problem in order to establish a case of obviousness. Applicant’s characterization of the prior art also appears to miss the overlap between the references – Applicant describes MCluskey as related to compression mechanics, but Hancock as directed to impact absorption, yet, compression and impact absorption are related (i.e., Hancock absorbs impact via compression, and McClusky teaches compression mechanics as it desires impact absorption). Similarly, the claimed invention requires its structure to return to its original form when released (i.e., essentially, compression and impact absorption). The prior art and the claimed invention share a common thread – namely, the desire to provide a structure which returns to its original state after compression, and the arguments appear to ignore this overlap.
On page 9, Applicant argues that the new claims distinguish over the prior art. However, these arguments are not found persuasive as the structure of McCluskey and Yokoyama would still function in the claimed manner, per the present claims. It is further noted that several of the new claims use the term “when,” indicating that the claimed features are directed to an intended use, as opposed to positively-recited structural elements. Furthermore, simply locating the structure of McCluskey and Yokoyama within a garment (as taught by McCluskey and Yokayama) would meet the presently claimed positional limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights