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 Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “than” is misspelled as “that”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2016/0027425).
Claim 1: Cook discloses a three-dimensional composite structure (abstract), including a 3D lattice structure that includes a plurality of struts (outer struts; fig. 22); a matrix phase surrounding the 3D lattice structure (fig. 22; ¶ 56; “a void region 54 filled with an inner material 106 (e.g., a solid matrix . . .)”); and a strain limiting structure positioned at the center of the 3D lattice structure (center/inner struts; fig. 22).
Claim 2: Cook discloses the 3D lattice structure having a polyhedral shape (fig. 22).
Claim 4: Cook discloses the plurality of struts includes a metallic material (¶ 76; “lattice structure includes metal plating”).
Claim 8: Cook discloses the strain limiting structure is fixed to the outer struts (fig. 36; ligaments 142).
Claim 9: Cook discloses the materials being fire resistant (metal; ¶ 76).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2016/0027425), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Cook 2 (US 2017/0107764).
Claim 3: Cook discloses the lattice structure having an octahedral shape (¶¶ 61-64), but is silent as to a stellated octahedral shape. However, Cook 2 discloses a 3D composite structure including a lattice structure that includes a plurality of struts (¶¶ 44-47), wherein the 3D lattice structure has a stellated octahedron shape (¶¶ 44-47). As taught by Cook 2, this shape is advantageous in packing the reinforcing particles of the reinforcement materials (¶ 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have the lattice of Cook shaped as a stellated octahedron to increase reinforcement particle packing.
Claim 5: Cook 2 discloses the matrix phase including a polymer (¶ 40).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2016/0027425), as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 6-7: Cook discloses the strain limiting structure (struts) includes a material (metal; ¶ 76) and a different material used to form the matrix phase (foam, aerogel; ¶¶ 44, 56), but Cook is silent as to the relative modulus, strength and toughness of the matrix and struts. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from the claimed relative modulus, strength and toughness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable relative modulus, strength and toughness to reach a target load (¶¶ 86-87). The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2016/0027425), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Walker (US 2017/0150779).
Claim 10: Cook is silent as to the materials including an electroreheological material. However, Walker discloses using ER fluids to change the stiffness of a structure under an electric field, establishing that ER materials serve as responsive structural elements (¶ 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the ER materials of Walker in the structure of Cook to provide the ability to change the stiffness of Cook’s structure under an electric field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights