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
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I claims in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-33 are cancelled as being drawn to a nonelected Group II claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NPL document entitled A metafluid with multistable density and internal energy states by Peretz et al. (hereinafter referred to as Peretz).
Regarding claims 1-24, Peretz discloses tailoring the thermodynamic properties of different fluids, by combining gas, liquid and multistable elastic capsules to create an artificial fluid with a multitude of stable states. The suspension’s internal energy, equilibrium pressure-density relations, and their stability for both adiabatic and isothermal processes are discussed. The elastic multistability of the capsules endows the fluid with multistable thermodynamic properties, including the ability of capturing and storing energy at standard atmospheric conditions, not found in naturally available fluids (see Abstract).
Multistable structures are a special class of mechanical meta-materials. Meta-materials have been designed to have “negative mass”, to manipulate light and stress waves, or to provide ultra-high stiffness to weight ratio. Multistable meta-materials feature a multitude of possible equilibrium configurations for a prescribed load. These meta-stable configurations differ in the state of each mechanical unit (building block), which leads to a highly inhomogeneous and non-affine deformation field for the whole body. Hence, by careful design of their building blocks, these multi-stable structures can be “programmed” to undergo morphological changes in response to external stimuli (see Introduction).
Thermodynamic pressure-density relations and their stability for a fluidic suspension composed of multistable elastic capsules, enclosing a compressible gas and immersed in a liquid, as seen in Figure 1. Each capsule is composed of n identical bi-stable elastic elements creating a single encapsulated volume, filled in with a compressible gas. For the sake of simplicity, body forces are hereafter neglected. We examine a control volume which includes a large number of capsules, so that homogenization may be applied, while keeping all physical properties spatially uniform (see Results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771