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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims retain at least one otherwise removed item number. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-24 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.
The term “greater than those of many existing cellular solids” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “greater than” and “many existing cellular solids” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is unclear what elastic modulus values would read upon the claim as there is no definition of what constitutes “many existing cellular solids” and therefore what would be a value “greater than” those. For purposes of examination, any structure which meets that set forth within claim 1 will be considered to read upon this limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims are substantial duplicates of claims 4 and 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babé et al. (WO 2021/094630, with US 2022/0380006 as the English Equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Bebé teaches a structure which may be considered a ‘truss’ as it has the taught tessellated sub-units of repeating triangles (See annotated 4b, below, which shows that the triangles are the repeating unit even if a support bar isn’t present via dashed lines) forming a lattice structure, where the ‘inner element’ is a triangle, formed with three inner element edges (Bebé fig 4b, annotated and labeled) with at least 12 struts radiating from one inner element (Bebé fig 4b, annotated with darkened lines, top right corner, but present throughout) to form triangles (Bebé fig 4b), quadrilaterals (Bebé fig 4b, annotated, formed of 2 and 3 triangles), and/or a hexagon (Bebé fig 4b, annotated), and the triangles are equilateral (Bebé fig 4b).
As in the 112(b) above, it is noted that the difference in elastic modulus would be intrinsic to the claimed structure, which is taught by Bebé.
Finally, because Bebé teaches the structure as claimed, it would be expected to have a change of mechanical properties of the truss structure as the number of triangles increases. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
1086
1333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé teaches that outer struts can be added to an inner element edge to form two equal sized triangles and thus the claimed ‘Hierarchial-2 triangles,’ which also forms the claimed ‘Quadilateral-2 triangles’, as well as the ‘Mixed Hexagonal-2 triangles’ (Bebé annotated fig 4b, above),
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé further teaches that outer struts may be added to the inner element edge to form three triangles, such as those outlined in the annotated figure above, highlighted with “Quadrilateral-3 triangle”, and thus teaches the claimed “Hierarchical-3 Triangles”, as well as the claimed “Hexagonal-3 triangle” (Bebé annotated fig 4b, above).
Regarding claim 20, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé illustrates that outer there can be a unit cell comprising six triangles and provides for a quadrilateral or hexagonal structure, see eg the marked ‘quadrilateral-3’ and ‘mixed hexagonal’ labeled sections of fig 4b, above.
Regarding claim 21, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé illustrates a two-dimensional lattice with unit cells joined at the apexes of outer triangles (Bebé annotated fig 4b, above).
Regarding claim 22, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé illustrates auxiliary struts placed inside triangular minimum units (Bebé annotated fig 4b, above).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Bebé teaches the claimed truss structure as above for claim 1. Bebé illustrates the apex of the triangles of the lattice being used to form one or more cylinders in the plane (Bebé annotated fig 4b, above; fig 9).
It is respectfully noted that ‘folded’ is a product-by-process type limitation. “[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 Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 3/30/26
