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 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 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.
With regard to claims 1, 8 and 16: There appears to be inadequate support for the cellular lattice core having a relative density of 10% or less (emphasis added). Examiner submits that the claimed range encompasses all values below 10%, which does not appear to be supported. Par. [0045]-[0046] of the original disclosure discloses relative density values of 4%, 7% and 10%.
With regard to claims 21-23: : There appears to be inadequate support for the cellular lattice core having a relative density of between 4% and 10% (emphasis added). Examiner submits that the claimed range encompasses all values between 4% and 10%, which does not appear to be supported. Par. [0045]-[0046] of the original disclosure discloses relative density values of 4%, 7% and 10%.
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(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0053726 A1) in view of Ollman (US 3,882,653).
With regard to claims 1, 8, 21 and 22: Reynolds et al. discloses a truss system (figs. 2-4 and 5-11) comprising:
a plurality of unit cells (three-dimensional trussed structures and braced planar truss systems) (figs. 2-4 and 5-11; par. [0002]), each unit cell comprising:
a base (B) (fig. 2);
a plurality of struts (A), each strut (A) comprising an I-shaped cross-section and each strut attached at one end to the base (B) (fig. 2-4 and 5-11); and
a top (C), each strut (A) attached to the top (C) at an opposite end and extending at an inclined angle between the base (B) and the top (C) (figs. 2-3 and 5-11).
Reynolds et al. does not disclose that the base is a base plate and the top is a top plate.
However, Ollman discloses a unit cell (three-dimensional truss structure) having a plurality of struts (23, 24) connected to a top comprising top plate (21) and a base comprising a base plate (22) (figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the truss system of Reynolds et al. to have the base comprise a base plate and the top comprise a top plate such as taught by Ollman in order to create a structural panel capable distributing load for use in creating floors, roofs and or walls. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the truss system of Reynolds et al. to have the base comprise a base plate and the top comprise a top plate such taught by Ollman. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Reynolds et al. as modified by Ollman discloses a sandwich structure comprising the cellular latticed structure formed from the truss system.
Reynolds et al. in view of Ollman does not disclose a relative density of 10% or less. Reynolds et al. in view of Ollman does not disclose the relative density between 4% and 10%.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the truss system of Reynolds et al. previously modified by Ollman to have the cellular core comprise a desired relative density, including a relative density between 4% and 10%, in order to reduce weight of the cellular core while maximizing structural characteristics including strength and load-bearing capacity for the use in which it was intended. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the relative density to be between 4% and 10% in order to reduce weight of the cellular core while maximizing structural characteristics including strength and load-bearing capacity. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2: Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0053726 A1)
With regard to claims 2 and 9: Reynolds et al. discloses that the plurality of struts (A) comprises four struts (figs. 2-3 and 5-11). Reynolds et al. as modified Ollman discloses the base plate and the four struts form a pyramid or a truncated pyramid.
With regard to claims 3 and 10: Reynolds et al. discloses that the I-shaped cross-section (figs. 5-11) comprises:
two parallel bars (flanges) (figs. 5-11); and
a link (web) that extends perpendicularly between and connects the two parallel bars (flanges) (figs. 5-11).
With regard to claims 4 and 11: Reynolds et al. discloses that each bar (flange) has a thickness that is equivalent to a width of the link (web) (figs. 5-11).
With regard to claims 7 and 14: Examiner notes that the claimed truss system comprising the plurality of unit cells are not assembled with one another, where each unit cell comprises their own base plate and top plate.
The plurality of cells being formed by repeatedly copying a single unit cell and translating each copy along an x direction, a y direction, or both is interpreted as a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claims 15-18 and 23: The claimed method would have been an obvious method of making a unit cell for a truss system for a cellular lattice core of sandwich structure in view of the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0053726 A1) and Ollman (US 3,882,653).
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0053726 A1) in view of Ollman (US 3,882,653) and in further view of Yan et al. (CN 104227182 A).
With regard to claims 5 and 12: Reynolds et al. in view of Ollman does not disclose that the I-shaped cross-section further comprises a plurality of triangles affixed to the link, each triangle providing a transition between the link and one bar of the two parallel bars.
However, Yan et al. discloses an I-shaped cross-section comprising a plurality of triangles (2) affixed to a link (3, web), each triangle (2) providing a transition between the link (3, web) and one bar of the two parallel bars (1, flange plates) (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the I-shaped cross section of Reynolds et al. to include a plurality of triangles affixed to the link, each triangle providing a transition between the link and one bar of the two parallel bars such taught by Yan et al. in order to provide reinforcement and stiffening of the I-shaped cross-section for withstanding greater loading.
With regard to claims 6 and 13: Reynolds et al. discloses that each bar (flange) has a thickness that is less than or equivalent to a width of the link (web).
With regard to claims 19-20: The claimed method would have been an obvious method of making a unit cell for a truss system in view of the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (US 2006/0053726 A1), Ollman (US 3,882,653) and Yan et al. (CN 104227182 A).
Response to Arguments
The objection of claims 8-14 and 21-23 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 6/11/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, Applicant argues the key in fig. 10 of the instant application calls out individual curves with examples of relative density values respectively of 4%, 7% and 10% that one of the skill in the art would readily be able to visualize and recognize other I-beam shapes that would fit in between, beneath, and/or beyond the individually identified curves and shapes. Applicant argues that with the recognition
that it would not be practicable to show every single example on the plot and that the depicted examples suitably permit extrapolation between or beyond depicted curves as discussed above, a person of skill in the art would understand that the inventors were not only in possession of the depicted examples, but also in possession of any corresponding examples between, beneath, or above the examples (e.g., which would include any between 4% and 10% or in any other relevant range of 10% or less as claimed).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, it is submitted that three specific relative density values are disclosed in the original specification and drawings. While it may not be practical to show every single example in a plot, Examiner submits that applicant does not disclose the claimed ranges at the very least in the original specification. It further noted that the Examiner is not arguing whether other relative densities are possible, but is stating that the disclosure does not make it clear that applicant has contemplated other relative densities. The argument that applicant was in possession of any corresponding examples between, beneath, or above the examples of 4%, 7% and 10% is not found persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 103, Applicant argues that the Office Action has not articulated how much the change is, how it can be determined if the change is of sufficiently small significance to be characterized as within the ambit of mere design choice. Applicant argues that if reducing weight were continued indefinitely, at some point, so much substance would be eliminated that the structure would be flimsy and fail.
Examiner respectfully submits that that in the design of a structural member including struts, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would take into account the parameters of the structural member including size, density and material. The argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would design a structural member to the point of failure without considering other parameters is not persuasive. Examiner notes that applicant previously argued that applicant was in possession of relative densities between, beneath, or above the examples of 4%, 7% and 10%.
Regarding the reference of Park, Examiner respectfully submits that the NPL document to Park et al. is merely used an evidentiary reference to show that it is known that the relative density dictates the properties of a lattice (section 2.1.1) and is not relied on to teach a specific relative density value or range. In response to applicant's argument that Park is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Reynolds and Park are lattice structures.
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights