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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 10/27/2025 have been considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2 and 4-12 are pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 104157186 A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a zero Poisson's ratio structure (figs. 1-6) comprising:
a central pillar (31 in fig. 1);
at least two branched connectors (211-214) extending radially from a lower end of the central pillar (31), wherein each of the branched connectors includes:
a first segmental portion (212 and 213) extending inclinedly upwardly or downwardly from the central pillar (31); and
a second segmental portion (211 and 214) extending inclinedly downwardly or upwardly from a distal point of the first segmental portion (212 and 213), wherein the extension directions of the first and second segmental portions are opposite to each other; and
each leg (11, 12) extending perpendicularly downwardly from a distal point of each of the second segmental portions (211 and 214),
wherein due to a force pressing the central pillar, each of an angle between the central pillar and the first segmental portion, an angle between the first segmental portion and the second segmental portion, and an angle between the second segmental portion and the leg is variable (note various degrees of angles between the first and second segmental portions in [0008]),
wherein there is little displacement of the structure in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the pressing force (note before vertical force applied to the legs 11 and 12 as shown in fig. 1 and the expansion of the segmental portions 212, 213, 222 and 223 in horizontal direction when vertical force applied on the legs 11 and 12 as shown in fig. 2) (also note [0055]-[0057]).
Liu discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including structure having a modulus of elasticity, bending stiffness and stretching characteristics (note [0020], [0064] and claims 6-7), and it is well known in the art that a certain unit is used to provide numerical values of the bending stiffness but fails to disclose the modulus of elasticity in a range of Kilo to Mega Pascal as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the modulus of elasticity in a range of Kilo to Mega Pascal , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as it will keep stable zero Poisson ratio under large deformation state if desired.
Re-claim 2, Liu discloses the structure includes an elastic structure (note the structure made of polymer material [0009]).
Re-claim 4, Liu discloses the branched connectors (211-214) are spaced from each other by an equal angular spacing.
Re-claim 6, Liu discloses a value determined based on a following Equation 1 when a length of the leg (11) is h, a length of the second segmental portion (211 and 214) is 1, and an angle between the second segmental portion and an imaginary horizontal line perpendicular to the leg is 0 is defined as up, wherein a value determined based on the following Equation 1 when the length of the leg (12) is h, a length of the first segmental portion (212 and 213) is 1, and an angle between the first segmental portion and the imaginary horizontal line perpendicular to the leg is 0 is defined as mv,
PNG
media_image1.png
90
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein absolute values of up and v~ are equal to each other.
Re-claim 7, Liu discloses lengths of the first segmental portion (212 and 213) and the second segmental portion (211 and 214) are equal to each other, wherein an angle between an imaginary horizontal line perpendicular to the leg (11) and the first segmental portion (212 and 213) is equal to an angle between the imaginary horizontal line perpendicular to the leg (12) and the second segmental portion (211 and 214).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 104157186 A) in view of Bin (CN 111720467 A).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including a plurality of branched connectors (211-214) but fails to disclose a number of the branched connectors is four, wherein the branched connectors are spaced from each other by an equal angular spacing of 90 degrees as recited in the claim. However, Bin discloses a structure with stable zero Poisson ratio comprising a number of the branched connectors is four, wherein the branched connectors are spaced from each other by an equal angular spacing (note the structure shown in figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application to modify the structure of Liu a number of the branched connectors is four, wherein the branched connectors are spaced from each other by an equal angular spacing as taught by Bin will keep stable zero Poisson ratio under large deformation state if desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Liu does not teach or suggest “there is little displacement of the structure in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the pressing force” as recited in the claim. The examiner disagrees. As set forth above, Liu discloses a little displacement of the structure in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the pressing force (note before vertical force applied to the legs 11 and 12 as shown in fig. 1 and the expansion of the segmental portions 212, 213, 222 and 223 in horizontal direction when vertical force applied on the legs 11 and 12 as shown in fig. 2) (also note [0055]-[0057]). The applicant further argues that Liu, by contrast, does not mention or teach any mechanism for maintaining constant width or preventing lateral deformation. Liu's focus is on connector geometry, but it does not disclose that the overall structure resists horizontal displacement, nor does it calculate a zero Poisson's ratio condition. The examiner notes that maintaining constant width or preventing lateral structure resists horizontal displacement were not claimed or required by the claim and thus the argument is not relevant. The examiner further notes that such argument is contradicting the limitations of “there is little displacement of the structure in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the pressing force” as recited in the claim.
The applicant further argues that Liu offers no guidance on material stiffness: without any suggestion in Liu of why a particular modulus range would be chosen, there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed range. The examiner disagrees. As set forth above, Liu discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including structure having a modulus of elasticity, bending stiffness and stretching characteristics (note [0020], [0064] and claims 6-7), and it is well known in the art that a certain unit is used to provide numerical values of the bending stiffness but fails to disclose the modulus of elasticity in a range of Kilo to Mega Pascal as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the modulus of elasticity in a range of Kilo to Mega Pascal , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as it will keep stable zero Poisson ratio under large deformation state if desired. Therefore, it is clear that Liu discloses all limitations as recited in the claim and thus the rejections are proper and valid.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616