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 .
The amendment filed April 6, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook III (US 2017/0107764).
Claim 1: Cook III discloses a 3D composite structure including a 3D lattice structure that includes a plurality of struts (figs. 4I-K interconnecting rod segments); a matrix phase surrounding the 3D lattice structure (lattice structures are dispersed in binder material 324; claim 1) wherein the matrix phase includes a material having a lower modulus and higher toughness than a material used to form the plurality of struts (¶¶ 26, 41, struts are made from hard, high-melting materials including tungsten carbide; ¶ 40, the surrounding matrix is a copper-alloy binder); and a strain limiting structure positioned at or near the center of the 3D lattice structure (figs. 4G-K) which is formed of the same hard mesoscale-structure composition as the remainder of the printed structure (tungsten carbide).
With regard to the relative modulus and toughness of the matrix and strut materials, Cook III teaches forming the mesoscale reinforcing structures of tungsten carbide (¶ 41), and identifying tungsten carbide as an erosion-resistant structure material (¶ 53). Cook III also identifies copper alloy, such as copper-manganese-nickel-zinc, teaching that refractory compositions maintain their form within a copper binder system owing to their inherently high melting temperature and low solubility (¶ 42). 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 hard tungsten carbide lattice structures dispersed in a copper-alloy binder matrix because the selection is made from a finite number of identified, predictable material options that Cook III discloses for this very purpose, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use, which is a hard, erosion-resistant, load-bearing reinforcing structure compatible with the infiltration binder is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Cook III teaches express motivation for the hard-reinforcement/ductile-matrix pair, teaching that the hard composite is otherwise brittle and prone to stress cracking (¶ 3). The claimed lower elastic modulus and higher toughness of the matrix material than the strut material is the natural result of that obvious selection.
Claim 2: Cook III discloses the 3D lattice structure having a polyhedral shape (¶ 45).
Claim 4: Cook III discloses the mesoscale reinforcing structure may be formed from tungsten (¶¶ 6, 41).
Claim 8: Cook III discloses the strain limiting structure being fixed to a strut (figs. 4G-4J).
Claim 9: Cook III discloses the struts and matrix being formed from fire-retardant materials (tungsten carbide and copper alloy; ¶¶ 40-41).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook III, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Cook 2 (US 2017/0107764).
Claim 3: Cook III 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 III shaped as a stellated octahedron to increase reinforcement particle packing.
Claim 5: Cook 2 discloses the matrix phase including a polymer (¶ 40).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook III, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Walker (US 2017/0150779).
Claim 10: Cook III 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 III to provide the ability to change the stiffness of Cook III’s structure under an electric field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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