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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1 – 22 in the reply filed on 9/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 23 – 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claim Analysis
A synthetic metal system comprising:
a frame member comprising a cellular structure including a plurality of openings;
and a matrix material comprising a polymeric material;
wherein the matrix material is configured to at least partially penetrate one or more of the plurality of openings in the frame member such that the frame member is at least partially encased within the matrix material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanucci et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0173459 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fanucci et al. teach:
a lattice fin having a metallic cell structure (Abstract) reading on the synthetic metal system, wherein the metal lattice fin is assembled with an outer frame around the cell structure [0012], as shown in Fig. 1 replicated herewith:
PNG
media_image1.png
772
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
thereby reading on the frame member comprising a cellular structure including a plurality of openings as required by the instant claim,
wherein the interior cell structure 12 is formed from a composite material comprising fibrous reinforcements impregnated with a matrix material, wherein the matrix materials are resins such as epoxy, polyester, and other thermoplastic resins [0043] thereby reading on the claimed matrix material comprising a polymeric material,
and wherein the composite material forms the interior cell structure 12 [0043] and wherein a hybrid embodiment may have the interior cell structure 12 formed of metal with the outer frame 14 formed of a composite material, or the interior cell structure 12 formed of a composite material with the outer frame 14 of metal. In any embodiment, a thicker shell of material can be added to the perimeter of the lattice grid or fin to increase strength and stiffness, as well as to protect the interior cell structure thereby reading on the matrix material is configured to at least partially penetrate one or more of the plurality of openings in the frame member such that the frame member is at least partially encased within the matrix material.
Regarding claim 2, Fanucci et al. demonstrate that the plurality of openings is defined by a plurality of frame elements which form the frame member as shown in the Fig. 1 replicated above.
Regarding claim 3, Fanucci et al. teach the frame member is a lattice structure (title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Fanucci et al. teach the plurality of openings defines a cavity within and/or on a surface of the frame member as demonstrated by the Fig. 1 replicated above.
Regarding claim 5, Fanucci et al. teach the frame member comprises two or more portions and wherein the frame member portions are configured for connection to one another and are retained in place relative to one another within the synthetic metal system by the matrix material as demonstrated by the Fig. 1 replicated above.
Regarding claim 6, Fanucci et al. teach at least a portion of the frame member is in at least partial contact with the environment external to the synthetic metal system as demonstrated by the Fig. 1 replicated above.
Regarding claim 7, Fanucci et al. teach the lattice fin may be formed entirely of metal, entirely of a composite material or may be a hybrid of metal and a composite material [0033] thereby reading on the at least a portion of the frame member is fabricated from a metallic material.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18, Fanucci et al. teach the base is formed of aluminum ([0033], claim 74) thereby reading on the at least a portion of the frame member being made from an electrically conductive material and resilient deformable material.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Fanucci et al. teach the matrix materials are resins such as epoxy, polyester, and other thermoplastic resins [0043] thereby reading on thermoplastic, thermosetting resins and the polymeric material suitable for processing by injection molding and/or extrusion.
Regarding claim 13, Fanucci et al. teach the matrix comprises a carbon fiber [0048].
Regarding claim 14, Fanucci et al. teach other additives in the matrix composition [0045] thereby reading on the unique identifier.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19-22, the claims are reciting an intended use of the synthetic metal system (bottom hole assembly, projectile, etc.). Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Fanucci et al. teach the same structural limitations of the instant claims as set forth in the rejection above and thereby read on the manner of which the claimed apparatus is intended to be used.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US Patent 8,119,047 B2).
Regarding claims 1-6, Moore et al. teach a sleeve in Figs. 3 and 5-8 which reads on the frame member (reference characters 18 and 42) wherein the frame member shows a cellular structure including a plurality of openings, and a matrix material (ref. characters 40 and 54) comprising a polymeric material (col. 4 line 54) wherein the matrix material penetrates the one or more plurality of openings of the frame member such that the frame member is at least partially encased within the matrix material (col. 4 line 54 – col. 5 line 30, col. 5 lines 59-61).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
668
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
677
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Moore et al. teach the sleeve is metal (claims 2 and 10).
Regarding claims 8-9, Moore et al. teach the metal is aluminum thereby reading on electrically conductive material and resiliently deformable material (col. 7 line 19).
Regarding claims 10-12, Moore et al. teach thermoplastic and thermosetting resins (col. 6 line 57-col. 7 line 5) and particularly teach polyurethanes thereby reading on the matrix materials as required by instant claim 10 and the polymeric material suitable for processing as required by instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Moore et al. teach carbon fibers (col. 7 line 5).
Regarding claim 14, Moore et al. teach other additives such as metallic or organic (col. 6 line 33) thereby reading on the unique identifier as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 15-16, Moore et al. teach the sleeves are used for downhole fluids (col. 1 line 45).
Regarding claims 17-22, the claims are reciting an intended use of the synthetic metal system (medical application, projectile, etc.). Case law has held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Moore et al. teach the same structural limitations of the instant claims as set forth in the rejection above and thereby read on the manner of which the claimed apparatus is intended to be used.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanucci et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0173459 A1) in view of Moore et al. (US Patent 8,119,047 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Fanucci et al. teach the synthetic metal system according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein. Fanucci et al. teach thermoplastic resin [0043] but do not particularly teach polyurethanes.
Moore et al. teach a sleeve in Figs. 3 and 5-8 having a plurality of openings, and a matrix material (ref. characters 40 and 54) comprising a polymeric material (col. 4 line 54) wherein the matrix material penetrates the one or more plurality of openings of the frame member such that the frame member is at least partially encased within the matrix material (col. 4 line 54 – col. 5 line 30, col. 5 lines 59-61) and wherein the matrix material is a polyurethane. Moore et al. offer the motivation of choosing the polyurethane due to their ability to provide resistance to a verity of downhole fluids (col. 1 line 45). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyurethane of Moore et al. in the synthetic metal system of Fanucci et al. thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 2016/067184 A1, WO 2005/065920 A2 and US Patent 6,214,049 as cited in the International Search Report dated 2/6/2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANEE REUTHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7026. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764