DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn as of June 25, 2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the term “and” should be added after the semicolon.
In claim 7, line 2, the phrase “a alginate” should read “an alginate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Group I-II should not be subject to restriction because the groups are capable of use together. This is not found persuasive because as the Applicant has indicated, the inventions are distinct if the inventions 3) are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect.
Specifically, part 3) of the distinction requirement requires either not capable of use together or materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. The Examiner agrees that the load cell of claim 15 may be used to test the material of claim 1. However, as described in the requirement for restriction/election mailed on 5/11/2026, the inventions as claimed have materially different design, mode of operation, and function as the invention of group I is directed towards a material and the invention of group II is directed towards a load cell apparatus for testing materials. While the apparatus of group Il can test the composition of matter of group I, the specific composition of matter is not required by the claim language of group II. Similarly, group I does not require any components of the load cell apparatus of group II, thus meeting the distinction requirements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14, it is unclear how the phrase “a hysteresis loop of at least 5.8 kJ/m3” is defined. This is because the Applicant has failed to clearly establish in the claim as to what the “hysteresis loop” is with regard to. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “an area enclosed by a hysteresis loop in the stress-strain curve during compression and relaxation of at least 5.8 kJ/m3”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rutledge et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0154391 A1, hereinafter Rutledge).
Regarding claim 1, Rutledge teaches a soft impact-absorbing material (see Abstract; see also [0042]-[0043], protective clothing provided impact-resistance, thus considered soft impact-absorbing material), comprising: a flexible network of polymers (see [0047], material base material is flexible network (cloth) of polymer fibers); and shear-thickening granules that shear-thicken in the presence of a fluid (see [0050]-[0053], cloth of polymer fiber impregnated with shear-thickening fluid including granules of e.g. cornstarch mixed with water, thus considered a shear-thickening granule that shear thickens in the presence or due to the presence of water in the shear-thickening fluid as described).
Regarding claim 2, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rutledge teaches that the fluid is water (see [0052], shear-thickening granules may be suspended in water).
Regarding claim 3, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rutledge teaches that the shear-thickening granules are starch granules (see [0050], discussion of cornstarch nanoparticles (granules)).
Regarding claim 4, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rutledge teaches that the starch granules are derived from a crop of maize (corn) (see [0050], use of cornstarch considered as derived from corn).
Regarding claim 10, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rutledge teaches that the soft impact-absorbing material of claim 1 further comprising glycerol (see [0052]).
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.
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge.
Regarding claim 5, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge fails to specifically teach that the flexible network of polymers comprises gelatin.
However, Rutledge does teach that the polymers may include polypeptides (see [0047]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the material of Rutledge such that gelatin was considered for the polymer substrate for the shear-thickening fluid. This is because gelatin is a mixture of polypeptides that has the benefit of being biodegradable and thus is an environmentally friendly consideration for fabric fibers.
Regarding claim 8, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to teach that the flexible network of polymers comprises chains intertwined into triple helices.
However, Rutledge does teach that the polymers may include polypeptides (see [0047]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the material of Rutledge such that collagen which includes triple helices was considered for the polymer substrate for the shear-thickening fluid. This is because collagen is a polypeptide that has the benefit of being soft and hypoallergenic and thus is a skin friendly consideration for fabric fibers.
Regarding claim 13, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to specifically teach that the soft impact-absorbing material is dehydrated.
However, Rutledge does teach that impact-absorbing material was heated for 48 hours at 50°C (see [0086]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that during the heating process of Rutledge, water within the material would evaporate and thus may be considered to undergo a dehydration process. This is because water evaporates from a material above freezing and thus the material may be considered to be dehydrated during the 48 hours of heating.
Regarding claim 14, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to specifically teach that the soft impact-absorbing material exhibits an area enclosed by a hysteresis loop in the stress-strain curve during compression and relaxation of at least 5.8 kJ/m3.
However, as described above, Rutledge teaches the material of claim 1 (see rejection above).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the material of Rutledge to have the same properties as the material of the claimed invention. This is because products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)), wherein the Examiner considers that the material as claimed has been taught by Rutledge and thus would exhibit a similar hysteresis loop in the stress-strain curve during compression and relaxation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2017/0174930 A1, hereinafter Peng).
Regarding claim 6, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to teach that the flexible network of polymers comprises acrylamide (AAm) polymerized with laponite (LAP) nanoparticles.
Peng teaches a flexible network or polymers comprises acrylamide (AAm) polymerized with laponite (LAP) nanoparticles impregnated with shear-thickening fluids (see Abstract; see also [0022]-[0033], flexible network of polymers formed by mixing and polymerizing DMAA (acrylamide) with laponite nanoclay).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the polymer of Rutledge such that acrylamide (AAm) polymerized with laponite (LAP) nanoparticles was considered. The various configurations of shear-thickening fluid impregnated polymers are considered for faster shear thickening rates or higher protective effect as described by Peng. The examiner notes that while the polymer of Peng failed to lead to shear-thickening properties, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the materials of Peng impregnated with other potential shear-thickening granules for potential shear-thickening properties of the material.
Claim 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0239640 A1, hereinafter Song).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to teach that the flexible network of polymers comprises cross-linking junctions; or that the soft impact-absorbing material is further comprising air bubbles.
Song teaches a soft impact-absorbing material (see Abstract; see also [0023], discussion of impact protection material) including a flexible network of polymers (see [0023]-[0024], discussion of polymers) comprises cross-linking junctions (see [0023]-[0024], use of polymer foam, considered as including cross-linking junctions); or that the soft impact-absorbing material is further comprising air bubbles (see [0023]-[0024], use of polymer foam, considered as including air bubbles).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the material of Rutledge such that the polymers included cross-linking junctions and air bubbles as suggested by Song. Cross-linked polymer foams with air bubbles allow for the foam to be easy to form and lightweight as suggested by Song (see [0005]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khandavalli et al. (“Large amplitude oscillatory shear rheology of three different shear-thickening particle dispersions”, Rheol Acta (2015) 54:601–618, hereinafter Khandavalli).
Regarding claim 12, Rutledge above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rutledge above fails to specifically teach that the soft impact-absorbing material comprises an elastic rheology having a loss tangent (δ) of at least 0.05.
Khandavalli teaches that the loss tangent for cornstarch in water shear thickening fluids is on the order of 0.1 (see Fig. 2, tan(δ) ≈ G”/G’ ≈ (~20/~200) ≈ 0.1 for JAM which corresponds to the cornstarch in water).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the loss tangent for the material of Rutledge would be on the order of 0.1 or greater for a polymer impregnated with a cornstarch and water based on the measurements of Khandavalli. This is because the shear thickening fluid of Rutledge and Khandavalli are on the order of 50% particle to water by weight and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a similar result. Furthermore, it is known in the art that a higher loss tangent correlates to increased damping, and thus one would expect that the flexible polymer including the shear thickening fluid would result in a higher loss tangent compared to the shear thickening fluid alone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Rutledge in view of Peng, Song, and Khandavalli above represents the best art of record. However, Rutledge in view of Peng, Song, and Khandavalli above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 14.
Specifically, Rutledge in view of Peng, Song, and Khandavalli above fails to critically teach that that the flexible network of polymers comprises a gel having both an alginate-Ca2+ and an AAm-BIS network.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 14 and the examiner can find no teachings for a soft impact-absorbing material as claimed and including that the flexible network of polymers comprises a gel having both an alginate-Ca2+ and an AAm-BIS network, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights