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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 25-28, 31, 33-38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher et al. U.S. PGPub 2009/0172864 (hereinafter “Fisher”) . Regarding claims 25 and 33, Fisher discloses a scaled composite structure, characterized in the scaled composite structure comprises:( i ) a flexible base layer arrangement (e.g. ¶21, 88 and 91, flexible material of the glove); and (ii) a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) scales attached to the flexible base layer arrangement, wherein the plurality of 3D scales are overlapping when the scaled composite structure is placed on a planar surface (e.g. ¶25, 115-116 and 121; Fig. 1, 9-10, 13 and 19-25), wherein a range of motion of the scaled composite structure (i.e. the range of motion of bending finger) is controlled through a size and a shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales such that the plurality of 3D scales are intersecting with each other when a limit of the range of motion is applied to the scaled composite structure, to provide a mechanical interlocking effect (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ). Regarding claim 26, Fisher discloses a scaled composite structure according to claim 25, characterized in that the flexible base layer arrangement enables each of the plurality of 3D scales to only rotate around a base plane in a centre point of each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶139-141; Fig. 5, 19 and 20). Regarding claim 27, Fisher discloses a scaled composite structure according to claim 25, characterized in that the flexible base layer arrangement operates against a force (e.g. impact force) that is produced when the limit of the range of motion is applied to the scaled composite structure until interlocking of each of the plurality of 3D scales such that the scaled composite structure provides impact protection against produced force through force distribution (e.g. ¶154-161). Regarding claim 28, Fisher discloses a scaled composite structure according to claim 25, characterized in that the size and the shape of at least a given scale of the plurality of 3D scales is a function of a location of the given scale (e.g. knuckle support segment and endcap support segment) within the scaled composite structure (e.g. ¶128 and 145-146; Fig. 19) . Regarding claim 31, Fisher discloses a scaled composite structure according to Claim 25, characterized in that each of the plurality of 3D scales comprises a body portion (e.g. knuckle support segment) and a nose portion (e.g. end cap support segment) , wherein the nose portion is characterized as a front extension of each of the plurality of 3D scales which overlaps a preceding 3D scale in the scaled composite structure (e.g. ¶128 and 145-146; Fig. 19) . Regarding claim 33, Fisher discloses a wearable protective device (e.g. glove) comprises:( i ) a flexible base layer arrangement (e.g. ¶21, 88 and 91, flexible material of the glove) ; and (ii) a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) scales attached to the flexible base layer arrangement, wherein the plurality of 3D scales are overlapping when the wearable protective device is placed on a planar surface (e.g. ¶25, 115-116 and 121; Fig. 1, 9-10, 13 and 19-25) ; wherein a range of motion of the wearable protective device is controlled through a size and a shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales such that the plurality of 3D scales are intersecting with each other when a limit of the range of motion is applied to the wearable protective device, to provide a mechanical interlocking effect (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . Regarding claim 34, Fisher discloses a wearable protective device according to claim 33, characterized in that the wearable protective device further comprises at least one of a double-sided adhesive layer, a type of hydrogel adhesive layer, a silicone adhesive layer or a rubber adhesive layer on one side of the wearable protective device or a sleeve that is interlaced (e.g. cushioning of sleeve for a hand or finger) with the wearable protective device, for attaching to a skin of a wearer (e.g. ¶91-92, 127 and 129) . Regarding claim 35, Fisher discloses a method for designing and manufacturing a scaled composite structure, wherein the scaled composite structure comprises a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) scales that are attached to a flexible base layer arrangement, wherein the method comprises: determining, by using a data processing arrangement, a flexible base layer arrangement and a shape of the flexible base layer arrangement, based on at least one input parameter, at a limit of a range of motion to be applied to the scaled composite structure (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) ; determining, by using the data processing arrangement, a size and a shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales that are arranged on the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion, thereby determining a length of each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) ; and manufacturing the scaled composite structure based on the size and the shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales that are arranged on the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion, such that the scaled composite structure provides a mechanical interlocking effect when the limit of the range of motion is applied to the scaled composite structure and is flexible until each of the plurality of 3D scales interlock with each other (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . Regarding claim 36, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, further comprises determining, by using the data processing arrangement, an overall size of each of the plurality of 3D scales and a distance between each of the plurality of 3D scales, based on the at least one input parameter (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) ; tessellating, by using the data processing arrangement, the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion based on the overall size of the each of the plurality of 3D scales and the distance between each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) ; and arranging, by using the data processing arrangement, the plurality of 3D scales on the flexible base layer arrangement according to a size and the shape of a base unit after tessellating the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion to determine the size and the shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . Regarding claim 37, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, characterized in that the method further comprises estimating a force (i.e. impact force) to be applied to the scaled composite structure based on the at least one input parameter for enabling determining the overall size of each of the plurality of 3D scales and the distance between each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105, 108-113, 128 and 145-146; Fig. 18-19) . Regarding claim 38, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, characterized in that the method further comprises determining ( i ) a thickness of each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 115-116 and 121; Fig. 1, 9-10, 13 and 19-25) ; (ii) a type of the flexible base layer arrangement for connecting each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶91-92, 127 and 129) ; and (iii) a material for manufacturing the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶91-92, 127 and 129) , based on an estimated force (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . Regarding claim 40, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, characterized in that the method further comprises determining an intersection point between each two scales of the plurality of 3D scales in a row of scales disposed on the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion, to determine the length of the of each of the plurality of 3D scales in the flexible base layer arrangement when curved to the limit of the range of motion (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . Regarding claim 41, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, characterized in that the method further comprises generating a 3D model (i.e. 3D structure) of the scaled composite structure based on a flattened flexible base layer arrangement with the plurality of 3D scales for enabling manufacturing of the scaled composite structure (e.g. Fig. 9-10 and 19-23) . Regarding claim 42, Fisher discloses a method according to Claim 35, characterized in that the size and the shape of at least one a given scale of the plurality of 3D scales are a function of a location of the given scale within the scaled composite structure, wherein the mechanical interlocking effect of the scaled composite structure is controlled through the size and the shape of each of the plurality of 3D scales (e.g. ¶25, 102, 105 and 108-113; Fig. 18 -20 ) . 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(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher as applied to the claim s above, and further in view of Dantus et al. U.S. PGPub 2017/0089779 (hereinafter “ Dantus ”) . Regarding claim 29, Fisher does not disclose the scales changing color when a force is applied. Dantus discloses a protective garment that change color when a force applied over the scaled composite structure exceeds a threshold value (e.g. ¶45) . At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the color of a protective garment when force is applied . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to provide a visual indicator to the user that a dangerous level of impact has been sustained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fisher with Dantus to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29 . Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher as applied to the claim s above, and further in view of Howland U.S. PGPub 2016/0040963 (hereinafter “Howland”) . Regarding claim 30, Fisher discloses segments with a length and width (e.g. Fig. 1, 13 and 19-25) , but does not explicitly disclose the length and width of the segments being within 0.01 mm to 500 mm. Howland discloses a protective garment that has segments whose dimensions are between 0.01 mm to 500 mm (e.g. ¶2 and 52-54; Fig. 4D). At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the glove segments with dimensions that are between 0.01 mm to 500 mm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order for the garment to move flexibly with the user while providing the desired protection . Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fisher with Howland to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 32, 39 and 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 32, the prior art of record does not disclose each scale being attached to the flexible base layer arrangement via a plurality of teeth provided at a surface of the scale facing towards the flexible base layer arrangement, wherein the plurality of teeth are arranged to penetrate through the flexible base layer arrangement to attach to a base plate. Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record does not disclose determining a diameter and a height of a plurality of teeth like structures in each of the plurality of 3D scales based on a degree of fineness and a thickness of the type of the flexible base layer arrangement, wherein the plurality of teeth like structures are configured to penetrate through the flexible base layer arrangement to attach the 3D scales to the flexible base layer arrangement. Regarding claim 43, the prior art of record does not disclose t he manufacturing of the scaled composite structure comprises: providing a flexible base layer arrangement; generating a bottom layer of at least one scale of the plurality of 3D scales; generating a plurality of teeth like structures projecting from the bottom layer; adding a first layer above the bottom layer; and generating a top layer of the at least one scale of the plurality of 3D scales on top of the first layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3743 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kamini Shah can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2279 . 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. CK December 12, 2025 /CHARLES R KASENGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116