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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a 3-D composite structure, classified in H01B17/60.
II. Claims 9-16, drawn to a method of making a 3-D composite structure, classified in B33Y80/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as by machining or injection molding rather than by additive manufacturing.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions would require different search strings or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with George Romanik on July 27, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 5 is 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.
The claim recites “having a lower modulus.” However, the claim has not specified which modulus. Is it Young’s modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus or flexural modulus? For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as Young’s modulus, as Examiner believes is intended.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,923,057 Carlson et al.
Regarding claim 1, Carlson teaches a three-dimensional (3-D) composite structure (column 1, lines 6-13), comprising:
a 3-D lattice structure (mesh) that comprises a plurality of electrically insulative struts (mesh portions, column 7, line 67 – column 8, line 4);
a matrix phase 14 surrounding the 3-D lattice structure, wherein the matrix phase comprises an electrorheological material (column 7, lines 22-26);
first and second electrically conductive face sheets 12 positioned on two faces of the 3-D lattice structure (figure 2), wherein the first and second face sheets are positioned such that an electric potential applied (by 16) between the first and second face sheets creates an electric field in the matrix phase that causes a desired reversible alteration (column 7, lines 55-61) to the viscosity of the matrix phase (column 2, lines 7-15); and
a plurality of electrically insulative containment sheets 32 positioned on all faces of the 3-D lattice structure that do not include the first and second face sheets (figure 5), wherein the first and second face sheets and the plurality of containment sheets are collectively configured to contain the matrix phase within the 3-D lattice structure (column 8, lines 57-62).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Carlson teaches a strain limiting structure 28 positioned at a center of the 3-D lattice structure and fixed to the struts (column 8, lines 3-18, where the mesh prevents excessive strain and is positioned at and fixed to all points of the lattice structure (struts) by virtue of being the same material) and embedded within the matrix phase (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Carlson teaches that the 3-D lattice structure has a polyhedral shape (figure 2, rectangular prism).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Carlson does not explicitly teach the modulus and toughness values of the matrix and struts. However, Carlson does teach that the matrix material is a liquid (column 2, lines 11-12) and that the mesh struts, which is also the strain limiting structure, is plastic (column 8, lines 22-24). Therefore, because liquids are flowable and plastic is not, the matrix phase 14 comprises a material having a lower modulus (less stiff), higher toughness (higher plastic deformation) and lower strength than a material used to form the plurality of struts.
Regarding claim 8, Carlson teaches that the plurality of struts (plastic, column 8, lines 22-24), and the matrix phase (dielectric, column 2, lines 11-12) are formed from fire-retardant materials, where plastics and dielectrics are fire-retardant.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,923,057 Carlson et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2017/0107764 Cook et al.
Regarding claim 4, Carlson teaches the polyhedral shape, but does not teach a stellated octahedron. Cook teaches a 3D composite structure including a lattice structure that includes a plurality of struts (paragraphs 0044-0047), wherein the 3D lattice structure has a stellated octahedron shape (paragraphs 0044-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because this structure is advantageous regarding increased packing of the reinforcement material particles (paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights