CTNF 17/720,277 CTNF 86689 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 10/15/2025 Claims 34-35 and 37-38 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Response to Applicant’s Election Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 34-35 and 37-38 in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged. Therefore, previously restricted claims 1-6, 12-15, 17, 18, and 21-24 belonging to group I are now withdrawn from consideration. Applicant should provide a new set of claims with the proper status identifier stating “Withdrawn” to the withdrawn claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Meisam Askari, NPL “Additive manufacturing of metamaterials: A review”, Published: 12 September 2020, (hereafter Meisam) . Regarding claim 34 . Meisam teaches a gradient refractive index (GRIN) device (Page 17, fig 24, spherical acoustic metamaterial structures)(Page 17, Col 1, Graded index acoustic, GRIN lens) , comprising: a plurality of triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) constructs (Page 18, Col 2, Par 2, nickel hollow triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS)) ; and one or more materials having a tailored dielectric constant (Page 4, Col 1, Par 5-6, metamaterials that can operate in these regions, dielectric constant was reduced by introducing air packets, invisibility cloaks have been fabricated using FDM, thus metamaterials having reduced dielectric constant was used to produce a GRIN that can exhibit total absorption, therefore the metamaterials dielectric constant was tailored to produce a GRIN that can exhibit total absorption) . Regarding claim 37 . Meisam teaches the device of claim 34, wherein a wall thickness of at least one TPMS construct of the plurality of TPMS constructs has a changing thickness across its length (Page 21, Fig 31 F,G,I, show a changing thickness across its length)(Page 21, fig 32a, single unit cell structure, having wall thickness) . Regarding claim 38 . Meisam teaches the device of claim 34, wherein a wall thickness of the plurality of TPMS constructs changes across a length of the GRIN device (Page 21, fig 32d, structure having different unit cell, and wall thickness)(Page 17, Luneburg lens, GRIN)(Page 26, Fig 42, pink image shows the changes in wall thickness of the plurality of TPMS constructs across the length of the GRIN device) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisam Askari, NPL “Additive manufacturing of metamaterials: A review”, Published: 12 September 2020, (hereafter Meisam), in views of I. Maskery, NPL, “Insights into the mechanical properties of several triply periodic minimal surface lattice structures made by polymer additive manufacturing”, Published: 15 December 2017 (hereafter Maskery) . Regarding claim 35 . Meisam teaches the device of claim 34, wherein the plurality of TPMS constructs (Page 20, fig 29, 3D printed polymetric micro-lattices)(Page 17, fig 24, cubic structure having gyroids) . Meisam does not teach further comprise one or more gyroids. Maskery teaches one or more gyroids (Page 66, fig 4, multiple gyroids) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meisam to incorporate the teachings of Maskery to have gyroids as TPMS because gyroid and diamond lattices deformed in a bending dominated manner, it would create better informed lattice designs, thus one type of TPMS could be replace by another (Maskery, Par 62, abstract) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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. /A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189 /REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189 Application/Control Number: 17/720,277 Page 2 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 17/720,277 Page 3 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 17/720,277 Page 4 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 17/720,277 Page 5 Art Unit: 2189