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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 and Species C, the core comprises foam (claim 6) in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 7, and 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024, 12/12/2024, 03/04/2025, 06/24/2025, 10/02/2025, 01/15/2026, 04/03/2026, and 07/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Please note, the only support in the specification for “rigidly affixed” appears to be pressure affixing, thus the scope of the claims are the same.
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 13 and 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation about 30-70%, and the claim also recites ranges such as 40-60% and e.g., 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 recites a list of thicknesses however it is unclear if all the thicknesses are required to be met or if the list is intended to include a disjunction and only a single one of the thicknesses should be met.
For sake of further examination, in each of claim 13 and 20, the claimed limitations will be met by meeting the broadest claimed range.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 15-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Bureau et al. (US 2015/0369325).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Bureau discloses an element (1) having a flexible core comprising a plurality of layers (30); here, the outer layers of the plurality are first and second face sheets positioned on the first and second sides of the core (Fig. 1). Bureau further discloses an envelope (10) surrounding and forming a seal around the core and face sheets (Fig. 1, 0051), and a valve (20) positioned within the envelope configured to allow application of pressure therethrough (0051).
Bureau teaches that the face layers are configured to shear against the core in a first configuration that is flexible without application of pressure from the inlet and where the face layers are pressure affixed to the flexible core layer in a second configuration that is rigid under the application of pressure from the inlet (0031 and 0111)
Regarding claim 2, Bureau teaches the pressure is negative pressure (0016).
Regarding claim 4, Bureau disclose the core layers may comprise coating layers (41,42) which increase friction coefficient of the layer (0093), thus being shear “enhancing”.
Regarding claim 5, Bureau teaches a plurality of core layers (Fig. 1, 0084).
Regarding claim 8, as Bureau teaches the core comprising a plurality of individual layers, it is discontinuous (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Bureau teaches an embodiment where the flexible layer (30) includes 37 layers having a thickness of 80 µm (0084). Thus, the “core” would include 35 layers and have a thickness of 2,800 µm (0.28 cm), anticipating the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 cm (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Bureau teaches where the flexible layers include a woven cloth (Fig. 9, 0114-0015).
Regarding claim 15, Bureau teaches the layers may include round fibers (Fig. 5-7).
Regarding claim 16, Bureau teaches the fibers include plastic (0106).
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 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bureau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moran (US 5,114,370).
Regarding claim 6, Bureau discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Bureau teaches the core may be made of a variety of materials (0089-0092), Bureau does not expressly teach the core comprising foam.
Moran, in the analogous field of rigidizable shells (column 1, lines 5-10) teaches a bodyboard having a variable stiffness (column 2, lines 30-35), the core comprising foam (column 2, lines 35-40).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the core sheets of Bureau may include a foam, as taught by Moran, as foam is resiliently deformable but can retain its shape (column 3, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 12, Bureau discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Bureau teaches that the thickness of the layers can be adjusted based on use (0093, 0111) does not teach expressly teach a thickness of the first and second face sheet of about 0.1-5 cm, 0.5-5 cm, or 0.5-23 cm.
Moran, in the analogous field of rigidizable shells (column 1, lines 5-10) teaches a bodyboard having a variable stiffness (column 2, lines 30-35), and comprising a stiffening fiber mesh layer (60) where the diameter of the mesh is 0.02 to 0.1 inch (column 4, lines 35-40), thus having a thickness of about 0.05 to 0.25 cm, overlapping the claimed thickness of about 0.1 to 5 cm.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the face sheet of Bureau to have a thickness of 0.02 to 0.1 inch as taught by Moran, to provide stiffening to the underlying core layers (column 4, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 13, Moran teaches where the stiffening fiber mesh layer does not extend over the entirety of the core surface (Fig. 1, column 4, lines 50-55). Moran teaches that the stiffening fiber mesh is applied in areas to increase the stiffness (column 4, lines 10-20).
While not expressly teaching a coverage percentage, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the coverage of the face sheets in Bureau based on the teachings of Moran, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). I.e., it would have been obvious to have optimized coverage of the mesh layer to increase stiffness in areas where increased rigidity would be wanted.
Claims 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bureau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davidson et al. (WO 2020/257878).
Regarding claim 14, Bureau discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bureau does not provide a density for the face sheets.
Davidson, in the analogous field of rigidizable structures (0098) teaches a tube comprising a sandwich structure (Fig. 4F). Davidson teaches that the density of the material may be varied depending on the properties desired and that by increasing density of material at a given location increases the strength or rigidity whereas less density of the material provides for more flexibility (0395, 0455).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the face sheet density in Bureau based on the teachings of Davidson, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). I.e., it would have been obvious to have optimized density to achieve desired stiffness/flexibility.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Bureau discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bureau does teach a suitable material for the outer layer.
Davidson, in the analogous field of rigidizable structures (0098) teaches a tube comprising a sandwich structure (Fig. 4F). Davidson teaches the interior textile comprising an interior textile membrane which allows for pressurizes breathable gas to be delivered to a patient (0087, 0102). The membrane material includes thermoplastic or thermoset materials, silicone, polyurethane (elastomer) or other material (0352).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the envelope of Bureau to include a plastic or elastomer as taught by Davidson, as this material provides a gas barrier.
Regarding claim 19, Bureau discloses the limitation of claim 1 as discussed above. Bureau does not disclose the outer layer comprising a hardness of about 30A-80A or about 50-60D.
Davidson, in the analogous field of rigidizable structures (0098) teaches a tube comprising a sandwich structure (Fig. 4F). Davidson teaches use of a rigidizer having a shore hardness of between shore A30-A90 and imparting rigidity to floppy areas (0416).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the envelope of Bureau to have a shore hardness of A30-A90, as taught by Davidson, as this hardness will provide sufficient rigidity to support floppy areas of the composite.
Regarding claim 20, Bureau discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bureau does not disclose a suitable thickness for the envelope.
Davidson, in the analogous field of rigidizable structures (0098) teaches a tube comprising a sandwich structure (Fig. 4F). Davidson teaches the interior textile comprising an interior textile membrane which allows for pressurizes breathable gas to be delivered to a patient (0087, 0102). Davidson teaches the thickness of the membrane layer may be determined depending on the manufacturing requirements with a thicker membrane layer providing more rigidity than a thinner membrane layer (0340).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized envelope thickness in Bureau based on the teachings of Davidson, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). I.e., it would have been obvious to have optimized thickness to achieve desired stiffness/flexibility.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bureau.
Regarding claim 21, Bureau discloses a valve adapted to evacuate the interior envelope/apply the vacuum (0051-0052). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious the valve would to attached to tubing either as a means for evacuating the gas or when under the application of vacuum.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
