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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The response dated 2/17/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. Applicant has amended claims 12 and 17 and added new claim 22. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 is persuasive, since the prior art fails to show that the one or more structural elements are tangent to the inner sheet at the second contact point. However, with respect to claim 4, the disclosure does not appear to support the combination of one or more structural elements tangent to the inner sheet at the second contact point AND the first and second structural elements intersecting at an intersecting point between the first and second contact points. In other words, figures 3a, 3b and 3c appear to be separate embodiments when compared to the other figures.
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 4 is 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. Claim 1 requires that the structural elements are tangent to the inner sheet at the contact points and as claim 4 depends from claim 1, the disclosure does not appear to support the additional requirement that that the first structural element intersects the second structural element at an intersection point between the first contact point and the second contact point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelsohn et al. (U.S. Patent 4,604,940) in view of Franksson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0236391) and in further view of Walls et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0102479) and in still further view of Craig et al. (U.S. Patent 12,209,666).
In regards to claim 12, Mendelsohn et al (henceforth referred to as Mendelsohn) disclose a method of manufacturing a payload assembly. Mendelsohn teaches manufacturing through molding a shock isolation pad for a missile (col. 1, lines 64-68), the method comprising:
Mendelsohn teaches placing an injector mold plate of a mold assembly in a defined position relative to an ejector mold plate to define a casting mold. Mendelsohn teaches a ladder type casting mold that incorporates two opposed plates. Mendelsohn does not necessarily describe an injector and ejector plate of the mold assembly. However,
a common form of injection molding includes the claimed plates and Franksson et al (henceforth referred to as Franksson) teaches an injection mold process using an injector and ejector plate and placing these plates as claimed (see abstract of Franksson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize an injection molding configuration incorporating the claimed mold plates to produce the elastomeric isolation pads of Mendelsohn as taught by Franksson, to provide a castable void between the plates;
Mendelsohn and Franksson do not explicitly disclose moving one or more corebars within the mold assembly along a common translational axis. However, Walls et al (henceforth referred to as Walls) teaches utilizing corebars in/on an injection mold device (see par. 5) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at t the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize corebars in/on the mold/casting configuration of Mendelsohn as taught by Walls, to introduce voids in the final product; and
injecting a material between the injector mold plate and the ejector mold plate to form an outer sheet, an inner sheet, and a resilient structure positioned between the outer sheet and the inner sheet. Mendelsohn as modified teaches injection of a material between the plates;
Mendelsohn also does not teach the resilient structure comprising a pair of structural elements each respectively coupled with the outer sheet and the inner sheet, the pair of structural elements intersecting at an intersection point between the outer sheet and the inner sheet, wherein the intersection point is offset from a radial midpoint of each structural element of the pair of structural elements. However, the prior art illustrates many different configurations for the damping and/or resilient elements between inner and outer sheets and Craig et al (henceforth referred to as Craig) teaches a similar configuration with an inner and outer shell and damping structure between consistent with the claimed intersection point (see the x pattern as shown in figure 1 of Craig) and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to fabricate the damping structure of Mendelsohn in various configurations including as claimed with an intersection point that is offset from the radial midpoint because a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 14, Mendelsohn discloses positioning a support within the mold assembly before injecting the material between the injector mold plate and the ejector mold plate. Mendelsohn teaches a ladder type mold to produce the pad which includes supporting components within the mold.
In regards to claim 15, Mendelsohn discloses that the support is configured as a preformed material formed from at least one of a metallic material, an elastomeric material, a polymeric material, or a synthetic material. The internal portions of the Mendelsohn mold are formed as a preformed component from a material consistent with those claimed.
In regards to claim 16, Mendelsohn discloses adhering the outer sheet to a launch tube; and positioning the outer sheet, the inner sheet, and the resilient structure around a payload. Mendelsohn teaches coupling the pad to a launch tube with the inner and outer sheets and resilient internal structure positioned as claimed.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelsohn et al. (U.S. Patent 4,604,940) and Franksson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0236391) and Walls et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0102479) and Craig et al. (U.S. Patent 12,209,666) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent 3,289,533).
In regards to claim 13, Mendelsohn fails to disclose applying a layer to the inner sheet and configured to reduce an amount of friction between a payload and the inner sheet. However, Brown teaches application of a Teflon coating on a missile contact side of a sealing pad (col. 1, lines 45-48) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to apply a friction reduction layer on the inner sheet of the Huber device as taught by Brown, to reduce friction.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (U.S. Patent 5,220,125) in view of Craig et al. (U.S. Patent 12,209,666) and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent 4,389,054).
In regards to claim 17, Huber discloses a sling pad system to be disposed between a missile and a launch tube, the sling pad system comprising:
an outer sheet (item 7 of figure 2);
an inner sheet spaced from the outer sheet (item 9);
a resilient structure positioned between the outer sheet and the inner sheet. Huber teaches a resilient web portion between the sheets (see figures 1 and 2),
Huber does not explicitly teach the resilient structure comprising a first structural element and a second structural element that intersect one another at an intersection point offset from a radial midpoint of the first structural element and the second structural element. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the web region of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient including as a chevron or in an X pattern and Craig teaches a web portion between two sheets of a sealing and damping structure that incorporates a shape consistent with the instant invention including intersecting portions of a web structure at a middle point or off set from a radial midpoint, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Note that providing the x shaped web from Craig in place of the chevron in the Huber design would necessarily meet the claimed structure;
wherein each of the first structural element and the second structural element extends at an acute angle relative to a radial direction between the outer sheet and the inner sheet. As shown in the prior art, the elements extend from the sheets at acute angles (see figures);
and
a support operably coupled with the inner sheet. Huber teaches a foam ring (item 15) and a hoop ring (item 11) constituting a support that is attached to the inner sheet;
Huber as modified by Craig discloses a sealing region extending from the outer sheet to the inner sheet in a radial direction, the sealing region configured to extend axially inward or outward of an end portion of the outer sheet and the inner sheet in the radial direction;
Huber does not explicitly describe a sealing region extending from the outer sheet to the inner sheet in a radial direction, the sealing region configured to extend axially inward or outward of an end portion of the outer sheet and the inner sheet in the radial direction. However, Lee et al (henceforth referred to as Lee) teaches a missile launcher shock absorbent seal with a sealing region that extends from the inside of the launcher tube to the outside of the missile indicated as cap (item 29) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a sealing portion in/on the Huber sealing shock absorber as taught by Lee, to provide an axial seal for the shock absorber.
In regards to claim 19, Huber discloses that the sealing region is separated from the resilient structure between the inner sheet and the outer sheet. Huber teaches multiple sheets with multiple components between including portions that are sealed.
In regards to claim 20, Huber discloses that the sealing region is positioned between the inner sheet and the outer sheet and contacts an axial end portion of the resilient structure. The portions of the Huber pad that are positioned between the sheets in figure 4 of Huber are positioned along the axial length of the tube as well as at the axial ends.
In regards to claim 21, Huber fails to teach that the inner sheet defines a vent hole extending radially through the inner sheet. However, Lee teaches a shock absorbing sealing member for a missile launcher that includes a inner shell vent hole (items 39 of figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide vent holes in/on the inner sheet of the Huber shock absorbing device as taught by Lee, to allow release of pressure.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-11 and 22 are allowable and 12-17 and 19-21 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 1, a sling pad system, wherein the one or more structural elements are tangent to the inner sheet at the second contact point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641