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 .
Claims 9-16 are being treated on the merits.
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.
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 9-12, 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stegmaier (WO 2017/140908) in view of Nickless (US D872,441).
Regarding Claim 9, Stegmaier discloses a material (Figures 1-3) comprising: a superposition of at least three layers (Figures 1-3), a lower layer (106), at least one intermediate layer (104) and an upper layer (102), each layer comprising: a plurality of platelets (110) arranged in a juxtaposed manner while forming a paving (Figures 1-3), with a clearance between said platelets (Figures 1-3); a connector (117) to join the plurality of platelets together (Figures 1 & 2); said at least three layers being superposed on one another so that the plurality of platelets of one layer are offset with respect to the plurality of platelets of the other layers so as to remove all openings in the material (Figures 1-3). Stegmaier does not specifically disclose each platelet of the upper layer comprises a local thickening at a level of an outer periphery of said each platelet. However, Nickless disclose platelets (Figure 6) comprises a local thickening (edges shown in Figure 6) at a level of an outer periphery of said each platelet (Figure 6). It would have been obvious to modify the platelet to have various thicknesses, as disclosed of Nickless, in order to provide a textured surface which can add additional features to a material; such as tactile sensations .
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless disclose for one layer of said at least three layers, the connector is a fabric (120 or 117) and the plurality of platelets of said one layer are securely bonded to the fabric (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless disclose the fabric is trapped within a thickness of a set of platelets (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless disclose said at least three layers are fixedly secured together (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless disclose the plurality of platelets of one layer of said at least three layers are geometrically shaped as three hexagons (Stegmaier, Page 4, lines 40-51), each hexagon joined together at a level of two adjacent edges (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless disclose an article of clothing comprising the material of claim 9 (Page 1-2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stegmaier (WO 2017/140908) in view of Nickless (US D872,441) in further view of Henry (USPN 8,354,170).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Stegmaier and Nickless do not disclose the plurality of platelets of said at least three layers are made by 3D printing. However, Henry discloses the use of 3d printing (Col. 8, lines 28-45)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
