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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 24, 2025 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as 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.
In addition, claims 1 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As written, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite “threshold value” however, the metes and bounds of the claim surrounding this parameter are unclear. There is no reference point for this threshold value and whether it is tied to specific composition of the materials and/or limited to a specific value and thus, the examiner cannot determine the parameter relative to the prior art.
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 2 of the remarks, filed October 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 – 22 over the reference of McKnight, et al. have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to the reference of McKnight, applicant argues:
In distinct contrast with amended Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, McKnight does not disclose or suggest a ratio of stiffness of the material of the cell structures to the stiffness of the 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 expansion or contraction. Indeed, the Examiner acknowledges that McKnight does not "specifically recite that the material [of the connective elements] is softer than the given material of the plurality of cell structures." (Office Action, at page 4.) McKnight also does not identify any threshold ratio of stiffness values that governs deformation behavior. The deformation described in McKnight occurs when the variable stiffness material is softened, reshaped under actuation, and then locked into a new configuration by returning the material to a stiffer state.
While the examiner concurs that specific types of materials are not identified, 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).
Furthermore, while applicant repeatedly argues that McKnight, et al. cannot render obvious the claims as the materials do not meet the properties as claimed and differ from that which applicant employs, applicant does not specifically point out which materials are being used and where the materials are identified in the specification. As noted previously by the examiner, the only exemplary materials identified 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.
In addition, the examiner also cites to the reference of Elzey, et al. Elzey, et al. teach a cell structure with connective elements. 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.
The examiner also notes that the newly-amended features in the independent claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112 1st and 2nd paragraph as discussed in the rejection above.
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).
Conclusion
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