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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) and Lattice Cell Species (a) (Figures 10-12; lattice cell 1000) in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. However, the limitations of Group I (Claims 1-7) exclude the Lattice Cell Species (a), specifically: “junctions including filleted junctions having radiused transitions between adjacent arms, and each arm including at least one non-uniform cross-section region such that a cross-sectional area of the arm varies along a longitudinal axis of the arm”.
During a telephone conversation with Maulin V. Shah on 07/07/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Species (b) (Figure 13; lattice cell 1300), claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 18/540,861, 18/615,012, 18/827,074, and 19/242,313, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. None of the prior-filed applications contain the object shown in Fig. 13 of the instant, also the Specification does not provide support for the elected claims 1-7. Thus, the effective date of filing is 02/19/2026.
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(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rave (US 2022/0400537) in view of NPL “Wang”, (Wang, X., Zhu, L., Sun, L., and Li, N., “Optimization of graded filleted lattice structures subject to yield and buckling constraints”, arXiv e-prints, Art. no. arXiv:2103.03372, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.03372.).
Regarding claim 1, Rave teaches a heating element (Fig. 3, para. [0069]: “heating element 23”), comprising:
a lattice structure (main body 25) including a plurality of lattice cells arranged in a repeating three-dimensional periodic array (Para. [0025]: “a ‘three/3-dimensional matrix’ ... encompasses an ordered array, repeating unit cell arrangement, lattice framework. That is, a 3-dimensional matrix, latticework matrix, etc. is a three-dimensional regular structure having nodes and comprising strands extending between the nodes in three dimensions”),
each lattice cell including a plurality of arms (strands) joined at junctions (Fig. 2, Para. [0028]: “the strands connect to each other in nodes to form the lattice of the three-dimensional matrix”).
Rave does not expressly disclose the junctions including filleted junctions having radiused transitions between adjacent arms, and
each arm including at least one non-uniform cross-section region such that a cross-sectional area of the arm varies along a longitudinal axis of the arm.
However, Wang discloses a similar periodic truss-like lattice structure arranged in a three-dimensional periodic array (Pg. 2, first paragraph), wherein the junctions including filleted junctions having radiused transitions between adjacent arms (Fig. 2, Pg. 4, first full paragraph), and
each arm including at least one non-uniform cross-section region such that a cross-sectional area of the arm varies along a longitudinal axis of the arm (Fig. 2, both lattice structures (b) and (d) demonstrate a wider cross-sectional area of the arm at the base and narrowing towards the center before flaring out again at the juncture of the adjoining structure. To be clear, the fillet itself provides the non-uniform cross-section.).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the lattice structure of Rave the filleted junctions of Wang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the features of Wang in order to “reduce stress concentration and increase structural load bearing capability” (Pg. 4).
Examiner’s Note: Please also see reference not relied upon attached NPL “Cao” (Full reference provided below), which discloses an additively manufactured three-dimensional lattice structure with non-uniform cross sections of the arms, which “exhibits better mechanical properties than the original one” (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 2-4, Rave does not expressly disclose the filleted junctions having a fillet radius in a range of approximately 25% to approximately 50% of a diameter of the respective arm;
the fillet radius being approximately 25% of the diameter of the arm; and
the filleted junctions having variable radii at different junctions within the lattice structure.
However, Wang teaches an optimization process for lattice structures with filleted junctions (Abstract), with the filleted junctions having a fillet radius in a range of approximately 25% to approximately 50% of a diameter of the respective arm (Pg. 5, discloses a formula for finding the fillet radius r, with a chart showing the various ranges of each parameter);
the fillet radius being approximately 25% of the diameter of the arm (Pg. 19, Fig. 16 (a) shows various fillet and strut radii with several locations with the fillet radius r being 25% of the diameter of the arm, e.g., a green section shows the fillet radius at approximately 0.57mm while the corresponding area shows a strut radius R of 1.02mm) ; and
the filleted junctions having variable radii at different junctions within the lattice structure (Fig. 16 shows optimized distributions of variable fillet radii r in a lattice structure model, the MBB shows fillet radii r ranging from 0.17mm to 0.83mm ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the lattice structure of Rave the varying ranges of filleted radii and the ratio of filleted radius to strut diameter as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the features of Wang “of introducing fillets to the lattice joints on reducing the stress concentration in the optimized lattice structures” (Pg. 21).
Regarding claim 5, Wang further teaches the non-uniform cross-section region including a tapered region (Pg. 4, Figs. 2 (b) and (d) both show tapered regions at the fillet).
Regarding claim 6, Rave further teaches comprising a first flange (Fig. 3, terminal end 30a) and a second flange (terminal end 30b) positioned at opposite longitudinal ends of the lattice structure (Fig. 3). Rave does not expressly disclose at least one of the first flange or the second flange including an angled portion formed at a non-orthogonal angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the lattice structure.
However, according to MPEP 2144.04 §IV §§B, limitations concerning shape are a matter of choice, and are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” In this case, there is no evidence in the Specification of any significance attributed to “an angled portion formed at a non-orthogonal angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the lattice structure”, and since Rave discloses flanges at each end of the latticework heating element it would be obvious to include an angled portion formed at a non-orthogonal angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the lattice structure as appropriate for “enabling connection of the latticework structure to a suitable electrical connections/conduits for the application of a voltage to the heating element” (Para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Rave further teaches the first flange, the second flange, and the lattice structure being integrally formed as a three-dimensionally printed monolithic structure (Para. [0019]: “present open structure matrix comprising latticework structure may be manufactured, for example, by additive manufacturing. The open structure matrix may comprise ‘terminals’ at opposite ends of the latticework structure, with such terminals enabling connection of the latticework structure to suitable electrical connections/conduits … respective terminal end regions represented by generally more dense or solid body portions for example as a layer, plate, disc or other generally solid body”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL “Cao” (Xiaofei Cao, Shengyu Duan, Jun Liang, Weibin Wen, Daining Fang, Mechanical properties of an improved 3D-printed rhombic dodecahedron stainless steel lattice structure of variable cross section, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Volume 145, 2018, Pages 53-63, ISSN 0020-7403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.07.006.) Discloses lattice structures with variable cross section arms but does not discuss fillets.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
1281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights