DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 08/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are still pending. In light of the claim amendments, the previous 102 rejection is withdrawn and the revised 103 rejection is detailed below. 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 § 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.
He in view of Luo
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 116378111) in view of Luo (CN 115263963). He discloses an application system of metamaterial vibration isolation pile array based on inertia damper gain. See Abstract. Luo is directed to a vibration isolator. See Abstract.
Claim 1: He discloses an inerter-based metamaterial [see Title] for low-frequency vibration attenuation [see Abstract (“…the metamaterial vibration isolation pile array, which can control the vibration of the low frequency stratum…”)] comprising: a structural matrix material [see Fig. 1]; and an inerter array embedded within the structural matrix material [see Fig. 1; see also Translation (“the metamaterial vibration isolation pile array arranged in the tunnel subway train vibration source, building between the plurality of metamaterial vibration isolation pile based on inertia damper gain array”)], the inerter array comprising: a first inerter cell (one damper 2) oriented along a first attenuation axis; and a second inerter cell (another damper 2) oriented along a second attenuation axis different from the first attenuation axis [see Fig. 1 (each damper along a parallel, but different, axis)]; wherein the first inerter cell comprises a first inerter (2-4, 2-5, 2-5-8, 2-5-9, 2-6) and the second inerter cell comprises a second inerter (another 2-4, 2-5, 2-5-8, 2-5-9, 2-6) [see Figs. 2, 4a-4c]. See Figs. 1-4c.
He discloses all the limitations of this claim except that the first and second axes, while being “different,” are not “non-parallel” (i.e., the various axes in He are parallel). Luo discloses a plurality of inerter cells of the inerter array arranged in a triangular lattice structure with the structural matrix material, such that the various attenuation axes are non-parallel to each other. See Figs. 3, 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make this modification because this ensures vibrational damping in multiple planes/directions, which would enhance the structural integrity of the assembly it is being used for (since vibratory forces often originate from various sources and/or directions). The use of dampers in multiple directions is well-known and commonly employed in the art. 2
Claim 2: He discloses that the first inerter and the second inerter are microinerters. See Translation (diameter 66cm); see also Application at page 19, lines 11-30 (defining “microinerter” to be in centimeters).
Claim 3: He discloses that the inerter array comprises a three-dimensional inerter array of inerter cells embedded within the structural matrix material, the three-dimensional inerter array comprising: a first inerter cell oriented along a first attenuation axis; a second inerter cell oriented along a second attenuation axis different from the first attenuation axis; and a third inerter cell oriented along a third attenuation axis different from the first attenuation axis and the second attenuation axis. See Fig. 1.
Claim 4: He discloses that the first inerter cell comprises a first spring (2-4) connected to the first inerter. See Figs. 2, 4c.
Claim 5: He discloses that the first spring is connected in series to the first inerter. See Figs. 2, 4a, 4c.
Claim 6: He discloses that the second inerter cell comprises a second spring (another 2-4) connected to the second inerter. See Figs. 2, 4c.
Claim 7: He discloses that the second spring is connected in series to the second inerter. See Figs. 2, 4c.
Claim 8: He discloses that the first inerter cell and the second inerter cell are separated from each other by at least a portion (1) of the structural matrix material. See Fig. 1.
Claim 9: He discloses that the first inerter cell comprises a first end and a second end. See Fig. 2.
Claim 10: He discloses that the first inerter cell is connected to the structural matrix material at both the first end and the second end. See Fig. 1.
Claim 11: He discloses that the second inerter cell comprises a first end and a second end. See Fig. 1.
Claim 12: He discloses that the second inerter cell is connected to the structural matrix material at both the first end and the second end. See Fig. 1.
Claim 13: He discloses that the inerter array comprises a plurality of inerter cells numbering three or more. See Fig. 1.
Claim 14: He discloses that the inerter array comprises a plurality of inerter cells numbering 5 to 10,000. See Fig. 1.
Claims 15 and 16: He discloses that each of the plurality of inerter cells of the inerter array are separated from other inerter cells of the inerter array by at least a portion of the structural matrix material such that the plurality of inerter cells are connected to each other via the structural matrix material. See Fig. 1.
Claim 17: He discloses that the plurality of inerter cells of the inerter array are arranged in a square lattice structure with the structural matrix material. See Fig. 1.
Claim 18: Luo discloses a plurality of inerter cells of the inerter array arranged in a triangular lattice structure with the structural matrix material. See Figs. 3, 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make this modification because using any number of polygonal shapes for damping is commonly used in the art, and it would further be obvious to try one of these limited symmetrical polygonal options, especially basic shapes such as square, rectangular, and triangular.
Claim 19: He discloses that each of the plurality of inerter cells comprise an inerter (2-5, 2-6) and a spring (2-4). See Figs. 2, 4c.
Claim 20: He discloses that the inerter is connected in series with the spring in each of the plurality of inerter cells. See Fig. 4a.
Claim 21: He discloses that each of the plurality of inerter cells comprise a first end and a second end, and each of the plurality of inerter cells are connected to the structural matrix material at both the first end and the second end. See Fig. 1.
Claim 22: He discloses that at least some inerter cells of the plurality of inerter cells comprise a first end and a second end, and the at least some inerter cells of the plurality of inerter cells are connected to the structural matrix material at both the first end and the second end. See Fig. 1.
Claim 23: He discloses that the inerters are mass-inerters and are at least one of a ball-screw inerter (2-5-8), a rack-and-pinion inerter, a hydraulic inerter, a fluid inerter (2-6), a living-hinge inerter, and a planetary-gear inerter. See Translation (“the inertial volume mass gain system (2-5) comprises a bearing (2-5-7), a ball screw thread screw (2-5-8) and a rigid flywheel (2-5-9)”).
Claim 24: see claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new 103 rejection, which uses the Luo teaching reference to address the newly added limitation. See Remarks, page 7.
With regard to the previous 103 rejection (of claim 18), Applicant attempts to preempt the instant 103 rejection of claim 1 by making a single conclusory statement that “even if Luo was combined with He in the way suggested by the Examiner, the deficiencies in He would still remain.” See Remarks, page 8. No other discussion is provided as to why Applicant believes this to be the case. Not only are conclusory statements not persuasive, but Applicant is incorrect here. Luo’s triangular lattice structure clearly provides attenuation axes that are “non-parallel,” hence the new limitation is properly disclosed here.
Any other peripheral arguments Applicant makes in connection with dependent claims concerning “an internal connection relationship” is properly discussed and disclosed in Luo. See Remarks, page 8.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights