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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed 1/8/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending with claim 1 being amended and claim 12 being newly added.
Examiner Note
This action is made non-final because it presents a 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 1 that should have been presented earlier. Responsibility for examination of this application has changed to the examiner indicated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the elements 52, 53 of Ayuzava are not seemlessly integrated partitions in the meaning of claim 1, in particular because Ayuzaya does not disclose that those element 52, 53 have ends connected seamlessly to the walls of the shell. … Additionally, connecting the carbon-fiber partitions to the walls seemlessly is not straightforward, especially within a shell; the skilled person is not capable of doing that without some taught technique (refer, e.g., to Applicant's allowed process claims). Indeed, none of the prior art documents disclose how to seamlessly connect partitions to walls of a shell when the partitions have carbon fibers.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant appears to be asserting that seamlessly and the use of carbon fiber must only fit the description set forth by applicant. It appears applicant is reading the specification as well as the methods of manufacturing into the device of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be aligned with what is recited in new claim 12. Claim 12 positively recites what seamless means and what components are seamlessly connected. Whereas claim 1 broadly recites the use of carbon fiber but does not actually recite that all of the elements are made of carbon fiber and that they would be formed as a single monolithic piece. Specifically, claim 1 recites “at least one shell comprising carbon fiber and at least two first walls facing one another”. Only the shell is recited as comprising carbon fiber. It is also unclear if the at least two first walls are considered portions of the shell or separate and distinct parts relative to the shell.
Further, the recitation in claim 1 of “one or more partitions comprising carbon fibre arranged inside the cavity … and each extending transversally to the first walls between two first ends respectively connected to the first walls seamlessly” does not require seamless connection between the partitions and first walls. Either through lack of punctuation or clause structure it is not clear what elements are seamless. The clause appears to only require that the partitions are arranged transversally to the first walls. It is the two first ends that are connected seamlessly to the first walls. However, what first ends? It is unclear which element(s) comprise the recited two first ends. Clarity on that point is required to align the claims with what applicant argues and is shown in the figures and described in the specification.
In sum, claim 1 is written broadly and is subject to a diversity of interpretations. If applicant intends for claim 1 to be interpretated as argued then clarifying amendments to claim 1 are necessary to distinguish over the prior art of record. Newly recited claim 12 helps clarify the scope of seamlessly connected. Addressing these clarity issues will advance prosecution and likely distinguish over any known prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1, the recitation of “one or more partitions comprising carbon fibre arranged inside the cavity … and each extending transversally to the first walls between two first ends respectively connected to the first walls seamlessly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which the “two first ends” belong to. One of ordinary skill in the art is left to guess what the two first ends are and which element recited in the claim or element not recited in the claim they belong to. Clarity on this point is required.
Claims 2-12 are indefinite due to their dependence from claim 1.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable for the reasons set forth in the non-final rejection mailed 9/25/2025. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 9/25/2025 is being maintained and is hereby incorporated into this action. The possibility of new or more on point prior art rejections is foreclosed at this time due to the lack of clarity inherent in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 12 clarifies what is meant by seamless connection and which components are seamlessly connected together. Clarity on that point will distinguish over the prior art of record.
Claims 6-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. For the reasons set forth in the non-final action of 9/25/2025 claims 6-11 recited allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB S. SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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.
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.
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655