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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As written, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite ‘…greater than a threshold value…” such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in reversible volume change; however, applicant’s specification does not recite the phrase “threshold value.” Applicant notes that support for the amendment can be found throughout but no specific paragraphs mention such a parameter. The specification mentions ‘stiffness ratio’ but comparing it to a threshold does not appear to be discussed.
Furthermore, upon review of applicant’s arguments in light of the specification, examiner maintains this rejection. The behavior exhibited by the metamaterial structure during the specific tests discussed in the specification is limited to the materials provided in the examples (i.e, DM9760, Tango Black and VeroWhlte – see paragraph 0017). In addition, the configuration of the sample(s) is also limited by that which is in the specification – note paragraph 0017 states that the specimens have dimensions of 50 mm x 50 mm x 20 mm and specimen 2 had a thickness of the hard square of t/2. As such, the claimed behavior is broader in scope than that which is detailed in the specification. The behavior exhibited is limited only to the examples shown and data provided for.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McKnight, et al. (US 7,678,440 B1).
With respect to claim 1, McKnight, et al. teach a mechanical metamaterial structure, comprising: a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern (figure 1a, column 6, lines 25 – 30) and comprising a given material (column 9, lines 25 – 40); and a plurality of connective elements (item 900 – figure 9A; column 13, lines 1 – 15), wherein the plurality of connective elements connect the plurality of cell structures (figure 9A).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While McKnight does not specifically recite that the material [of the connective elements] is softer than the given material of the plurality of cell structures, McKnight teaches that the material of the cell structure 804 is connected to each other via a hinge joint 900. When a stimulus is activated, the hinge joint 900 may selectively control which truss members 802 are allowed to undergo bending moments or displacements (column 13, lines 10 – 15). The hinge joint undergoes a change in stiffness or softening to a low stiffness (column 13, lines 14 – 15). Because of this response to an external stimulus, the connective elements may absorb local loads and undergo some amount of deformation or volume change. Thus, it is obvious that the connective elements are softer and because of the response of the connective elements, the cell structure contracts or expands as recited (column 7, lines 45 – 50, see also figure 5).
In addition, McKnight does not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, the hinge joint(s) of McKnight can be made of ‘active material’ which can be shape memory alloys or polymers, electro-active polymers and the like (see column 4, lines 35 – 40). The cell structure can be comprised of variable stiffness materials or a VSM with an active material or may be comprised of multiple active/passive and variable stiffness materials in either the same or different material combinations (column 7, lines 33 – 38) and thus, because of this difference in material selection, it would be obvious that the ratio(s) of the stiffness of the given material to the material of the plurality of connective elements would differ and is greater, such that the metamaterial structure buckles and is capable of undergoing reversible volume change.
With respect to claim 2, while McKnight, et al. does not specifically teach a square lattice structure, McKnight, et al. teach that the cellular geometry is selected from various shapes and may include rectangular, rhombic, hexagonal, etc. (column 4, lines 44 – 57) and thus, having a square lattice structure would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art. The examiner further notes that changes in shape are well within one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, the examiner contends that the shape of the lattice structure does not provide a significant contribution over the prior art.
With respect to claim 3, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the connective elements comprise soft hinges connecting each of the plurality of cell structures to adjacent cell structures (item 900 – figure 9A, column 13, lines 9 – 14; the examiner notes that the connective elements undergo a change wherein it softens to low stiffness).
With respect to claims 4 – 5, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious that the connective elements form a layer on outer surfaces of the cell structure (figure 9A – the examiner notes that the hinges form a layer on some portion of the exterior of the cell structure); wherein the external stimulus comprises a mechanical load, a temperature change, a humidity change, or an electric-magnetic field (column 4, lines 48 – 52); the external stimulus causing deformation of the connective elements and relative displacement of the cell structures, thereby resulting in the volume expansion or contraction of the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 3, lines 15 – 20; column 8, lines 60 – 65).
With respect to claims 6 – 8, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 4, lines 30 – 40); wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for use in a sensor, an actuator, a medical device, a bio-medical device or material, a smart digital display, smart apparel, or a wearable device (column 14, lines 1 – 9); and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 5, lines 1 – 20; the examiner notes that the structure of McKnight, et al. if expanded or contracted, thus changes its shape and thus its pattern overall).
Claim(s) 9 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McKnight, et al (referenced above).
With respect to claim 9, McKnight, et al. teach a method of expanding or contracting a structure, comprising the steps of providing a mechanical metamaterial structure (column 13, lines 5 – 15), comprising a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern (figure 9a) and a plurality of connective elements connecting the plurality of cell structures (item 900 – figure 9a).
While McKnight does not specifically recite that the material [of the connective elements] is softer than the given material of the plurality of cell structures, McKnight teaches that the material of the cell structure 804 is connected to each other via a hinge joint 900. When a stimulus is activated, the hinge joint 900 may selectively control which truss members 802 are allowed to undergo bending moments or displacements (column 13, lines 10 – 15). The hinge joint undergoes a change in stiffness or softening to a low stiffness (column 13, lines 14 – 15). Because of this response to an external stimulus, the connective elements may absorb local loads and undergo some amount of deformation. Thus, it is obvious that the connective elements are softer and because of the response of the connective elements, the cell structure contracts or expands as recited (column 7, lines 45 – 50, see also figure 5).
In addition, McKnight does not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, the hinge joint(s) of McKnight can be made of ‘active material’ which can be shape memory alloys or polymers, electro-active polymers and the like (see column 4, lines 35 – 40). The cell structure can be comprised of variable stiffness materials or a VSM with an active material or may be comprised of multiple active/passive and variable stiffness materials in either the same or different material combinations (column 7, lines 33 – 38) and thus, because of this difference in material selection, it would be obvious that the ratio(s) of the stiffness of the given material to the material of the plurality of connective elements would differ and is greater, such that the metamaterial structure buckles and is capable of undergoing reversible volume change.
With respect to claim 10, while McKnight, et al. does not specifically teach a square lattice structure, McKnight, et al. teach that the cellular geometry is selected from various shapes and may include rectangular, rhombic, hexagonal, etc. (column 4, lines 44 – 57) and thus, having a square lattice structure would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art. The examiner further notes that changes in shape are well within one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, the examiner contends that the shape of the lattice structure does not provide a significant contribution over the prior art.
With respect to claims 11 – 12, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the connective elements comprise soft hinges connecting each of the plurality of cell structures to adjacent cell structures (item 900 – figure 9A, column 13, lines 9 – 14; the examiner notes that the connective elements undergo a change wherein it softens to low stiffness); wherein the connective elements form a layer on outer surfaces of the cell structure (figure 9A – the examiner notes that the hinges form a layer on some portion of the exterior of the cell structure).
With respect to claims 13 – 14, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the external stimulus comprises a mechanical load, a temperature change, a humidity change, or an electric-magnetic field (column 4, lines 48 – 52); wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 4, lines 30 – 40).
With respect to claims 15 – 16, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for use in a sensor, an actuator, a medical device, a bio-medical device or material, a smart digital display, smart apparel, or a wearable device (column 14, lines 1 – 9); and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 5, lines 1 – 20; the examiner notes that the structure of McKnight, et al. if expanded or contracted, thus changes its shape and thus its pattern overall).
Claim(s) 17 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McKnight, et al (referenced above).
With respect to claim 17, McKnight, et al. teach a mechanical metamaterial structure, comprising: a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern and comprising a given material (figure 9a); and a plurality of connective elements (item 900 – figure 9a) which is responsive to external stimulus (column 13, lines 10 – 15), wherein the connecting elements connect the plurality of cell structures (figure 9a), wherein the connecting elements responds to external stimulus (column 13, lines 10 – 15, note that McKnight, et al. teach that the hinge joint “softens” when exposed to a stimulus).
McKnight, et al. does not explicitly recite that the connecting elements material is softer than the given material of the plurality of cell structures, or that the cells are in a square lattice structure or wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure; however, such elements are rendered obvious over McKnight, et al.
When a stimulus is activated, the hinge joint 900 may selectively control which truss members 802 are allowed to undergo bending moments or displacements (column 13, lines 10 – 15). The hinge joint undergoes a change in stiffness or softening to a low stiffness (column 13, lines 14 – 15). Because of this response to an external stimulus, the connective elements may absorb local loads and undergo some amount of deformation. Thus, it is obvious that the connective elements are softer and because of the response of the connective elements, the cell structure contracts or expands as recited (column 7, lines 45 – 50, see also figure 5). Furthermore, with respect to the shape of the lattice structure, McKnight, et al. teach that the cellular geometry is selected from various shapes and may include rectangular, rhombic, hexagonal, etc. (column 4, lines 44 – 57) and thus, having a square lattice structure would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient, the metamaterial of McKnight, et al. renders obvious this feature because a stimulus is applied, causing the hinge joint to soften, thereby affecting the truss structure to selectively deform, contract or expand.
In addition, McKnight does not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, the hinge joint(s) of McKnight can be made of ‘active material’ which can be shape memory alloys or polymers, electro-active polymers and the like (see column 4, lines 35 – 40). The cell structure can be comprised of variable stiffness materials or a VSM with an active material or may be comprised of multiple active/passive and variable stiffness materials in either the same or different material combinations (column 7, lines 33 – 38) and thus, because of this difference in material selection, it would be obvious that the ratio(s) of the stiffness of the given material to the material of the plurality of connective elements would differ and is greater, such that the metamaterial structure buckles and is capable of undergoing reversible volume change.
With respect to claims 18 – 19, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the connective elements comprise soft hinges connecting each of the plurality of cell structures to adjacent cell structures (item 900 – figure 9a); wherein the connective elements form a layer on outer surfaces of the cell structures (item 900 – figure 9a; the examiner notes that the hinge joint forms a layer [or covers edge portions] on some portion of the exterior of the cell structure).
With respect to claims 20 – 21, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the external stimulus comprises a mechanical load, a temperature change, a humidity change, or an electric-magnetic field (column 4, lines 48 – 52); the external stimulus causing deformation of the connective elements and relative displacement of the cell structures, thereby resulting in volume expansion or contraction of the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 3, lines 15 – 20; column 8, lines 60 – 65); and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for use in a sensor, an actuator, a medical device, a bio-medical device or material, a smart digital display, smart apparel, or a wearable device (column 14, lines 1 – 8).
With respect to claim 22, McKnight, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 5, lines 1 – 20; the examiner notes that the structure of McKnight, et al. if expanded or contracted, thus changes its shape and thus its pattern overall.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Elzey, et al. (US 7,288,326 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Elzey, et al. teach a mechanical metamaterial structure, comprising: a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern (figure 1a, column 10, lines 17 – 30) and comprising a given material (item 116 and 118 – figure 1a; column 10, lines 23 – 28); and a plurality of connective elements (item 110 – figure 1a; column 10, lines 20 – 25), wherein the plurality of connective elements connect the plurality of cell structures (figure 1A). Elzey, et al. further teach that the material of the cell structure is comprised of conventional metal/alloy (column 9, lines 40 – 42) while the connective elements are typically comprised of elastic shape memory alloy (SMA) (column 9, lines 45 – 50). Therefore, the examiner contends that the material of the connective elements is softer than the given material of the cell structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
360
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the connective elements are responsive to an external stimulus (column 10, lines 5 – 15) wherein a volume change occurs in the metamaterial structure.
In addition, Elzey, et. al. does not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, because the active core member is made of SMA which reacts to external stimulus and is soft per say relative to the rigid members (column 9, lines 40 – 50) and the multi-material member is further comprised of rigid members 116 and 118, which may be conventional metal/alloy, it would follow that stiffness ratio limitation as recited is obvious and expected.
With respect to claim 2, Elzey, et al. teach that the structure may be a truss structure (see figure 2a – 2c) and while Elzey, et al. do not specifically recite a square lattice, the reference appreciates open-cell structures and thus, a square lattice is obvious.
With respect to claim 3, the connective elements may not specifically be recited as “soft hinges” but they act as such as they connect the cell structure and are capable of bending and/or collapsing.
With respect to claim 5, Elzey, et al. teach an external stimulus such as heating which causes deformation of the connective elements (column 9, lines 55 – 60).
With respect to claims 6 – 8, Elzey, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure (figure 1a, 1b; column 10, lines 20 – 40); wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for use in a sensor, an actuator, a medical device, a bio-medical device or material, a smart digital display, smart apparel, or a wearable device (column 2, lines 15 – 25); and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 10, lines 20 – 40; the examiner notes that the structure of Elzey, et al. if expanded or contracted, changes its shape and thus, its pattern overall).
Claim(s) 9 – 11, 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Elzey, et al (referenced above).
With respect to claim 9, Elzey, et al. teach a method of expanding or contracting a structure, comprising the steps of: providing mechanical metamaterial structure, the mechanical metamaterial comprising: a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern and comprising a given material (see figure 1a, 2a; column 9, lines 30 – 35); and a plurality of connective elements connecting the plurality of cell structures, the connective elements comprising a material that is softer than the plurality of cell structures and is responsive to external stimulus (figure 1b, see also 2a – 2c; column 10, lines 10 – 15; 20 – 30), and applying the external stimulus is applied to the connective elements to cause a volume change in the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 10, lines 5 – 15).
In addition, Elzey, et. al. do not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, because the active core member is made of SMA which reacts to external stimulus and is soft per say relative to the rigid members (column 9, lines 40 – 50) and the multi-material member is further comprised of rigid members 116 and 118, which may be conventional metal/alloy, it would follow that stiffness ratio limitation as recited is obvious and expected.
With respect to claim 10, Elzey, et al. teach that the structure may be a truss structure (see figure 2a – 2c) and while Elzey, et al. do not specifically recite a square lattice, the reference appreciates open-cell structures and thus, a square lattice is obvious.
With respect to claim 11, the connective elements may not specifically be recited as “soft hinges” but they act as such as they connect the cell structure and are capable of bending and/or collapsing.
With respect to claim 13, Elzey, et al. teach an external stimulus such as heating which causes deformation of the connective elements (column 9, lines 55 – 60).
With respect to claims 14 – 16, Elzey, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure (figure 1a, 1b; column 10, lines 20 – 40); wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for use in a sensor, an actuator, a medical device, a bio-medical device or material, a smart digital display, smart apparel, or a wearable device (column 2, lines 15 – 25); and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 10, lines 20 – 40; the examiner notes that the structure of Elzey, et al. if expanded or contracted, changes its shape and thus, its pattern overall).
Claim(s) 17 – 18, 20 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Elzey, et al (referenced above).
With respect to claim 17, Elzey, et al. teach a mechanical metamaterial structure comprising: a plurality of cell structures arranged in a repeating pattern and comprising a given material (see figure 1a, 2a; column 9, lines 30 – 35); a plurality of connective elements comprising a material that is softer than the given material of the plurality of cell structures and is responsive to an external stimulus (figure 1b, see also 2a – 2c; column 10, lines 10 – 15; 20 – 30), and applying the external stimulus is applied to the connective elements to cause a volume expansion or contraction in the mechanical metamaterial structure (column 10, lines 5 – 15). While Elzey, et al. do not specifically recite a square lattice, the reference appreciates open-cell structures and thus, a square lattice is obvious.
In addition, Elzey, et al. teach or render obvious wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure has a tuned positive or negative expansion coefficient based on the materials of the cell structures and connective elements or the shape of the mechanical metamaterial structure (figure 1a, 1b; column 10, lines 20 – 40).
Elzey, et. al. do not specifically recite “wherein a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value such that application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change. However, the examiner contends that this behavior is equivalent to a property of the material composition themselves. In this case, because the active core member is made of SMA which reacts to external stimulus and is soft per say relative to the rigid members (column 9, lines 40 – 50) and the multi-material member is further comprised of rigid members 116 and 118, which may be conventional metal/alloy, it would follow that stiffness ratio limitation as recited is obvious and expected.
With respect to claim 18, the connective elements may not specifically be recited as “soft hinges” but they act as such as they connect the cell structure and are capable of bending and/or collapsing.
With respect to claim 20, Elzey, et al. teach an external stimulus such as heating which causes deformation of the connective elements (column 9, lines 55 – 60).
With respect to claims 21 – 22, Elzey, et al. teach that the mechanical metamaterial may be configured for use in an actuator (column 2, lines 15 – 25) and wherein the mechanical metamaterial structure is configured for inducing color change or pattern change (column 10, lines 20 – 40; the examiner notes that the structure of Elzey, et al. if expanded or contracted, changes its shape and thus, its pattern overall).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of remarks filed April 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 – 22 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
While the examiner concurs that the specification need not demand exact words be used verbatim in the specification, the examiner contends that the claimed “threshold value” and how it is used relative to the testing and data provided does not have sufficient support in the specification. In other words, the claim recites “a ratio of stiffness of the given material to stiffness of the material of the plurality of connective elements is greater than a threshold value…such that...induces a pattern transformation buckling mode..” which would imply that the claim cover(s) a broad range of materials; however, the specification limits the data to a specific number of specimens.
For example, per paragraph 0017, two designs were fabricated: 1) single material using DM9760, 2) TangoBlack and VeroWhite. Overall dimensions of the specimens were 50mm, 50mm and 20mm. For specimen 2, the hard square is t/2. Thus, the behavior and results obtained are limited to the specimens as noted in the disclosure, while the claim is broader in scope and thus, the examiner contends that the claim does not comply with the written description requirement. Per MPEP 2163, the examiner contends that the claim has been evaluated to determine if “sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble.” In this case, the examiner concludes that while the specification has detailed test results, the results only apply to the narrow configuration(s) outlined in the specification.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the claim(s) need not be ipsis verbis citing Martin v. Johnson, examiner respectfully disagrees that that fact pattern applies here. In Martin v Johnson, the description requirement was disputed with respect to a compound and its structural formula; however, as noted in the decision “the compound described [regardless of name or structural formula] is the same and thus, the description need not be ipsis verbis. In other words, while the name of the compound was disclosed without the structural formula, such did not matter. One of ordinary skill in the art could determine the compound structure from the name (or vice versa). There is no dispute over whether a threshold value is called something else in this case. In applicant’s disclosure, there is no mention of a threshold value per say and while the examiner concurs that the tests show that the given materials may exhibit a buckling mode, the data only applies to the narrow configurations detailed in the specification, which is not commensurate with the broad claim.
With respect to applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b), the examiner, however, does find such arguments persuasive. Examiner concurs that the metes and bounds of the claim language itself are clear. Furthermore, applicant argues that “as discussed above, the specification identifies the stiffness ratio between two material phases, describes the mode transition through both simulations and analysis, and provides a physical mechanism underlying the transition. A person of ordinary skill in the art could readily determine, for any given combination of materials, whether the stiffness ratio exceeds the threshold by observing whether application of the external stimulus induces the pattern transformation buckling mode.” Based on this point specifically, examiner concurs that the claim itself is clear and thus, based on how the claim is written, one should be able to determine if a buckling mode is attained. For these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the remaining arguments over the prior art, examiner has respectfully considered such arguments but is unpersuaded.
With respect to the reference of McKnight, applicant argues:
McKnight merely teaches controlled deformation. McKnight describes that the transition from a first shape to a second shape occurs through "using an actuation signal to actuate the variable-stiffness material ("VSM") to change the stiffness of the cellular structure, thereby allowing the cellular structure to be deformed from the first shape to the second shape." (McKnight, Abstract.) Specifically, deformation of its cellular structure proceeds through a three-step process:
(1) softening the VSM by applying a stiffness-changing field; (2) actuating an external actuator, such as "an electromagnetic motor, hydraulic cylinder, pneumatic cylinder, and ultrasonic piezoelectric motor", to physically deform the structure into a new shape; and (3) hardening the VSM to lock the deformed shape. (McKnight, col. 3, lines 10-38.) In McKnight, the external actuation determines the final shape of the structure. Stiffness modulation merely serves as a permissive mechanism because it allows reshaping and fixation, but does not determine what shape or deformation pattern results. The stiffness change in McKnight enables deformation to occur. There is no teaching in McKnight that any ratio of stiffness between structural components determines which buckling mode the structure will undergo such that "application of the external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change."
The only reference in McKnight to "buckling modes" appears in the context of varying wall thickness to control local strain within individual cell walls. (McKnight, col. 4, lines 14-18.) This mention of "buckling modes" refers, at most, to localized wall behavior within a cell wall structure, governed by geometric tuning of cell wall thickness. Accordingly, this disclosure is limited to localized, geometry driven cell wall behavior and does not teach or suggest the claimed pattern transformation buckling mode.
Moreover, McKnight teaches away from inducing buckling in the cellular structure.
While the examiner concurs that there is no explicit teaching of the buckling modes, examiner contends that applicant is arguing a specific behavior which is tied to the metamaterial itself and its configuration. McKnight does teach the class of materials of which the connective elements and cell structure may be made. McKnight, et al. (as pointed out by the examiner previously) appreciates the use of variable stiffness materials (VSM). McKnight teaches that the cell structure can be composed of a single VSM, a VSM with an active material or may be comprised of multiple active/passive and variable stiffness materials in either the same or different material combinations (column 7, lines 33 – 38). Furthermore, the cell structure itself may incorporate the active material, not in the entire cell structure itself, but can incorporate the active material in at least one cell (column 4, lines 25 – 30). In other words, because of the variation in material configuration as taught by McKnight, the cell structure is not entirely made up of a single type of VSM. There can be distinctions within the cell structure itself which would thus result in different material properties exhibited. For example, the cell structure itself may be comprised of a passive stiff material (column 9, lines 8 – 10) in its core (column 12, lines 1 – 5) and a variable stiffness outer material (column 12, lines 5 – 10). This distinction in the material configuration would be expected to result in the stiffness ratios as recited. In other words, if the joints are made of active material 800 which can be shape memory alloys or polymers, electro-active polymers and the like (see column 4, lines 35 – 40), it would follow that the joint material is different from the rest of the cell structure as it is the area where the material is softened allowing the deformation (ie., contraction per say) within the cellular units (column 13, lines 10 – 20). Based on the overall teachings in McKnight, et al., and the configuration and material(s) of the cell structure, examiner contends that the buckling mode would be expected and it does necessarily flow from the teachings of the applied prior art. Examiner has compared the material(s) and structure of the prior art structure of McKnight, et al. with that identified in the specification and based on such teachings and comparison(s), the examiner concludes that the behavior would be exhibited. Applicant continues to argue that 1) McKnight, et al. is silent with respect to any discussion of buckling modes and 2) that the examiner has failed to establish that the structure in McKnight, et al. exhibits the claimed relationship or behavior; however, the examiner as shown above has addressed these arguments. In contrast, applicant does not address why the materials in McKnight, et al. would not behave as claimed. As noted previously by the examiner, the only exemplary materials identified [in the instant specification] for the cell structure are TangoBlack and VeroWhite. The specification also teaches ‘soft’ connections which may have different designs (paragraph 0042). These soft connections (or hinges) may have ‘shape memory’ effects (paragraph 0042). The shape memory materials are shown to have pattern transformation through temperature change (paragraph 0043). These materials are equivalent to that which McKnight, et al. uses. It is unclear as to why these materials differ than that which is used in the prior art.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 over the reference of Elzey, et al., applicant similarly argues:
Elzey discloses multifunctional cellular structures "consisting of conventional metal/alloy truss structures (or other material structures) in combination with shape memory metal/alloy components (or other material components)." (Elzey, Abstract.)
Elzey does not mention any buckling mode or controlled buckling behavior. Elzey further teaches away from exploiting buckling as a functional mechanism. In describing its scissors-type structures, Elzey recites that "it shall be important to avoid local buckling of compressive struts, which will occur if no accommodation mechanism is available." (Elzey, col. 17, lines 3-5.) Elzey further describes that, in the absence of pin or pivot joints to accommodate relative strut rotation, "unless these deformations are kept acceptably small, struts will fail at or near the joint due to static overload or fatigue." (Elzey, col. 17, lines 10-12.) Elzey's cellular structures are thus designed to prevent buckling: rigid truss members transfer compressive loads while active core member absorbs energy through tensile deformation, and accommodation mechanisms (pin joints, pivot joints) are specifically provided to avoid compressive strut buckling. Accordingly, Elzey does not disclose or suggest a threshold stiffness ratio such that application of external stimulus induces a pattern transformation buckling mode that results in a reversible volume change.
While the examiner concurs that Elzey, et al. is silent with respect to the controlled buckling behavior, examiner contends that the configuration of Elzey, et al. anticipates the claimed structure and the materials in Elzey, et al. are equivalent to that described in applicant’s specification. As noted in the rejection above, Elzey, et al. teach the cell structure may be a truss comprised of rigid metal or alloy materials and soft active core members which connect the cell structure. The soft active core members may be shape-memory alloys. Furthermore, the structure of Elzey, et al. reacts to external stimulus such as heat which causes a volume change in the structure itself. Based on the material(s) described in the reference, the configuration of the cell structure and the same type of applied stimulus (i.e., heat), examiner contends that the buckling behavior would be exhibited. Applicant has not pointed out why the material(s) in Elzey, et al. are different from the instant specification or why the material(s) cannot or would not behave as claimed. Again, the examiner has carefully applied a prior art reference with equivalent material(s) in a same structural configuration as claimed.
In summary, the examiner has addressed the arguments and contends that the prior art rejections are still applicable and thus, the rejection(s) are maintained. In addition, the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is also maintained for the reasons as noted.
Reference of Interest
McKnight, et al. (US 7,901,524) is cited of interest. McKnight, et al. ‘524 teach a structure for actuating variable stiffness materials. The structure has a combination of variable stiffness elements. Via input of an actuator, the variable stiffness section deforms causing a change in the structure geometry (i.e, contraction or expansion, see figures 8a – 8c). Boyce, et al. (US 2014/0030487 A1) is also cited of interest. Boyce, et al. teach composite materials with a material interface which wrinkles under an internal or external load.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights