Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/309,331

THIN-WALLED TUBE FILLED WITH METAMATERIALS HAVING MIXED POISSON RATIOS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
KING, BRADLEY T
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Southwest Jiaotong University
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 940 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renegar (US# 2022/0250684) in view of Martino Gonzalez et al (US# 2017/0058985). Renegar discloses a thin-walled tube 112 filled with metamaterials including a thin-walled tube body with a porous structure, wherein each hole of the thin-walled tube body is filled. Figures 11-12. Renegar lacks the disclosure of the holes of the body being filled with a PPR filling strip or a NPR filling strip; the PPR filling strip comprises a plurality of PPR cells that are connected in sequence, and the PPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a positive Poisson ratio; the NPR filling strip comprises a plurality of NPR cells that are connected in sequence, and the NPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a negative Poisson ratio. Martino Gonzalez et al discloses a similar impact absorber and further teach PPR filling strips 25 and NPR filling strips 35; the PPR filling strip comprises a plurality of PPR cells that are connected in sequence, and the PPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a positive Poisson ratio; the NPR filling strip comprises a plurality of NPR cells that are connected in sequence, and the NPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a negative Poisson ratio. [0026]-[0029] Figures 3a-7b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PPR and NPR filling strips, such as taught by Martino Gonzalez et al, to fill the layers 128/130 or 126/128/130 or 126/128/130/132 of Renegar to provide high energy absorption capacity, to provide adaptability for damping impacts with predetermined excitation frequencies, and/or to reduce weight. [0045]-[0048] Claims 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renegar (US# 2022/0250684) and Martino Gonzalez et al (US# 2017/0058985), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ivens et al (US# 2019/0231019). Regarding claim 2, Renegar, as modified, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the thin-walled tube body having a 3×3 structure. Ivens et al disclose an energy absorption structure and further teaches various configurations including a 3x3 arrangement. Figures 2a-2b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a 3x3 arrangement, such as taught by Ivens et al, in the device of Renegar as an obvious alternative arrange which provides a different number of zones which can be provide further tuning of the device, thereby increasing performance in various applications. Regarding claims 3-8, the claims are directed to various combinations of NPR and PPR filling strips in the 3x3 array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum distribution of NPR and PPR filling strips in the 3x3 array through routine design and/or experimentation to provide the optimum mechanical and/or acoustic absorption for a given application. Note particular applications may expect more or less mechanical or acoustic impacts, or may expect the impact from particular directions. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Martino Gonzalez et al, Applicant argues that “the segments with a positive Poison's ratio and a negative Poisson's ratio in Gonzalez et al are just common honeycomb configurations which belong to 2D in-plane structures, wherein the cells of the first and second segments are shown in FIG. 3 below. As the specific structure of the segments, they can only provide positive Poison's ratio and negative Poisson's ratio in directions perpendicular to the axis of the cell (that is, in the xy plane), resulting that the segments in Gonzalez et al only function in resisting impact of x, y directions not z direction” and “the NPR filling strip and the PPR filling strip belong the 3D structure and thus can function in resisting impact of x, y, z directions.” Applicant further states “Therefore, although Gonzalez et al discloses segments with a positive Poison's ratio and a negative Poisson's ratio, it does not disclose "the PPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a positive Poisson ratio" and "the NPR filling strip is a metamaterial with a negative Poisson ratio" defined in amended claim 1 of the resent invention.” It is first noted that it is not clear which limitations of the claims require the function in resisting impact of x, y, z directions argued by Applicant. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to discuss these features either. Figures 3a-c of Martino Gonzalez et al are also noted. An impact in the direction D (can be considered the X direction) results in transmission and absorption in the Y direction (T, figures 1a-1b, horizontal arrows in figure 3c) as well as the Z direction (vertical direction in figure 3b, substantially the same as T in the Y direction). The specific orientation of the Poisson’s ratios does not appear to be required by the claims, nor for providing impact absorption. Regarding Renegar and Ivens et al, Martino Gonzalez et al is relied upon for the recited metamaterial. 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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM. 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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. /BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 BTK
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 13, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600332
Vehicle Braking System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600334
ELECTRONIC BRAKE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600337
HYDRAULIC BRAKE APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601385
SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600338
AIR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REUSING EXHAUSTED AIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+24.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 940 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month