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 .
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 6 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 6 line 3, it is unclear if the recitation “a longitudinal axis” is referencing the previously recited longitudinal axis (cl. 1 line 10), or another longitudinal axis.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,564,688 to De Gain.
Re-claim 1, De Gain discloses a unit cell for vibration damping, the unit cell comprising: a plurality of rib elements (see figure 9, each corrugated section is interpreted as a rib element), at least one rib element of the plurality of rib elements comprising: three or more bendable solid hinge portions 71/72 oriented along at least two distinct planes of the respective rib element, the three or more bendable solid hinge portions form a Sarrus linkage within the respective rib element, each of the three or more bendable solid hinge portions is configured to absorb energy by converting the energy into linear motion along a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element to thereby dampen vibration within the three-dimensional lattice structure. Compression of the structure will absorb energy.
Re-claim 5, a surface area of the respective rib element is increased at a vertex 71 of the three or more bendable solid hinge portions relative to another portion of the respective rib element. Upon compression, the hinge will present a larger surface area, as is expected in the instant invention, which is not shown or clearly disclosed.
Re-claim 6, the respective rib element is configured to be compressed such that the three or more bendable solid hinge portions fold outward away from the longitudinal axis of the respective rib element responsive to a compressive loading.
Re-claim 7, the respective rib element is configured to be stretched such that the three or more bendable solid hinge portions fold inward toward a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element responsive to a tensile loading. Stretching or pulling the structure will result in a flattening of the bendable portions 72.
Re-claim 8, De Gain discloses a three-dimensional lattice structure for vibration damping, the three-dimensional lattice structure comprising a plurality of unit cells (see figure 2), each unit cell of the plurality of unit cells comprising: a plurality of rib elements (each corrugated portion), at least one rib element of the plurality of rib elements comprising: at least one Sarrus linkage having three or more bendable solid hinge portions 71 (that are additively manufactured, the process of manufacture does not define the invention, MPEP 2113) and oriented along at least two distinct planes of the respective rib element, the at least one Sarrus linkage is configured to absorb energy by converting the energy into linear motion along a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element to thereby dampen vibration within the three-dimensional lattice structure.
Re-claim 9, the additively manufactured 3D printing technique is seen as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. This type of manufacturing method is not interpreted as defining the apparatus claim.
Re-claim 11, at least one rib element of the plurality of rib elements comprises a hollow section (see portion 73) configured to reduce a weight of the three-dimensional lattice structure.
Re-claim 12, end portion 73 is seen as a non-bendable rib element.
Re-claim 13, at least a portion of the three-dimensional lattice structure is configured to surround a sensitive component to protect the sensitive component from shock. As shown in figure 2, a sensitive component can be placed within an area protected by the lattice structure.
Re-claim 14, the three-dimensional lattice structure comprises a stretch-dominated lattice structure.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108583483 A to Wei et al.
Re-claim 1, Wei et al. disclose a unit cell for vibration damping, the unit cell comprising: a plurality of rib elements (see figure 6), at least one rib element of the plurality of rib elements comprising: three or more bendable solid hinge portions 1020 oriented along at least two distinct planes of the respective rib element, the three or more bendable solid hinge portions form a Sarrus linkage within the respective rib element, each of the three or more bendable solid hinge portions is configured to absorb energy by converting the energy into linear motion along a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element to thereby dampen vibration within the three-dimensional lattice structure.
Re-claim 5, a surface area of the respective rib element is increased at a vertex 1020 of the three or more bendable solid hinge portions relative to another portion of the respective rib element. Upon compression, the hinge will present a larger surface area, as is expected in the instant invention, which is not shown or clearly disclosed.
Re-claim 6, the respective rib element is configured to be compressed such that the three or more bendable solid hinge portions fold outward away from the longitudinal axis of the respective rib element responsive to a compressive loading.
Re-claim 7, the respective rib element is configured to be stretched such that the three or more bendable solid hinge portions fold inward toward a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element responsive to a tensile loading. Stretching or pulling the structure will result in a flattening of the bendable portions 1020.
Re-claim 8, Wei et al. disclose a three-dimensional lattice structure for vibration damping, the three-dimensional lattice structure comprising a plurality of unit cells (see figure 6), each unit cell of the plurality of unit cells comprising: a plurality of rib elements (each unit 100), at least one rib element of the plurality of rib elements comprising: at least one Sarrus linkage having three or more bendable solid hinge portions 1020 (that are additively manufactured, the process of manufacture does not define the invention, MPEP 2113) and oriented along at least two distinct planes of the respective rib element, the at least one Sarrus linkage is configured to absorb energy by converting the energy into linear motion along a longitudinal axis of the respective rib element to thereby dampen vibration within the three-dimensional lattice structure.
Re-claim 9, the additively manufactured 3D printing technique is seen as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. This type of manufacturing method is not interpreted as defining the apparatus claim.
Re-claim 13, at least a portion of the three-dimensional lattice structure is configured to surround a sensitive component to protect the sensitive component from shock. As shown in figure 6, a sensitive component can be placed within an area protected by the lattice structure.
Re-claim 14, the three-dimensional lattice structure comprises a stretch-dominated lattice structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,503 to Rueger et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite three or more bendable solid hinge portions, which obviously covers the four or more bendable solid hinge portions recited in the patented claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Gain; Melton, Ohtani, Kang, Akiyama, Sissom, Cook, Berger Zhao, Delahousse and Swift each teach an energy absorbing feature having a Sarrus linkage.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
December 16, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616