DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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(s) 15 and 18-31 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1, it is unclear what is being claimed because the claim requires a unitary plate is formed from a plurality interconnected blocks, which is the opposite of the meaning of the term “unitary plate”. A unitary plate is a single undivided plate. The particular, the follow limitation in claim 1 is problematic:“a plurality of elementary hexagonal columnar shaped blocks, the blocks being
arranged adjacent one another in a honeycomb-like pavement and being interconnected by linking means to form a unitary plate”
It is problematic because a unitary plate is a single, undivided, and continuous plates formed as a whole single unit, rather than multiple separate pieces joined together.
As evidenced by Webster and Google the plain meaning of unitary and a unitary plate is the opposite of the claim limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
992
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result it is not possible to comprehend the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
In reference to claim 24 and 31, “lightweight” is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. 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 reference to claim 25, 27, and 29, “breakable” is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. 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.
Note: Claims 18-31 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 15 and 18-23, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speyer (US 20240426581 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Speyer discloses forming a composite part comprising at least one multi-blocks structure as core material, said method comprising the following steps:
laying up in a backing mould said multi-blocks structure(s) and at least two outer layers of laminate so that said the multi-blocks structure(s) is/are sandwiched between said two outer layers,
applying a vacuum bag thereon,
introducing a resin inside the vacuum bag under conditions allowing the infusion of the resin within the multi-blocks structure(s) (j and the outer layers of laminate, and
curing the resin (“application of (bag interior) vacuum and (bag exterior) autoclave pressure (75 to 100 psi, for example) forces the aramid fabric and carbon fiber prepreg to accommodate to the shape of the imbricated pattern of wrapped ceramic tiles. The heat-treatment then sets the carbon fiber prepreg, which then permanently adopts the shape of the imbricated pattern (i.e., is molded over the carbon-fiber-wrapped boron carbide tiles 12), providing each carbon-fiber-wrapped boron carbide tile 12 a pocket to be locked into” [P0055];
and,“the aramid fabric lattice 16 is made to tightly adhesively adhere to the rear face of the carbon-fiber-wrapped boron carbide tiles 12.” [P0057])
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
204
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See Fig 14-15 and “the aramid fabric lattice 16 is made to tightly adhesively adhere to the rear face of the carbon-fiber-wrapped boron carbide tiles 12.” [P0057])
Speyer does not use the term “hexagonal block”, and instead refers to the equivalent elements as tiles.
The claim is rejected as obvious in view of Fig 14 which shows tiles having a general hexagonal shape and/or by assertion of official notice that hexagonal shaped blocked suitable for the same use were known in the art and would have been obvious to use as an art recognized shape for the same purpose.
In reference to claim 18-21, 23, 26-27 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See rejection of Claim 1 which includes these limitations. See figures and descriptions thereof, and 0055-0057 of the reference. Fig 14 shows blocks with fibers attached to a second side, the reference explains this arrangement meets the limitations.
In reference to claim 22, see “epoxy” at paragraph 53.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200156288 A1 teaches metamaterial microstructure sheets on a cambered mold through mold pressing, vacuum bag pressing, or the like, to form a cambered conformal metamaterial biscuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights