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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 16-23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant (GB 2490894) (Chandler-Mant) in view of Pardue et al. (US 2019/0160989) (Pardue) and Feng et al. (CN 204820473) (Feng).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 204820473 with the Office Action mailed 11/10/2025. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1 and 16-17, Chandler-Mant teaches a layer adapted for use in personal protection equipment, such as a helmet (p. 2, lines 24-26) (corresponding to an impact attenuation liner for a helmet). The layer is formed by additive manufacturing process and includes an arrangement of internal spaces (p. 2, lines 24-26) (corresponding to an additively manufactured lattice structure; the additively manufactured lattice structure including a plurality of cells). The layer is a liner and has a curved shape intended to generally match the contours of the top of the wearer’s head (p. 2, lines 11-13; p. 5, lines 8-10) (corresponding to configured to be disposed inside a the helmet; the additively manufactured lattice structure includes a top surface having a convex curvature corresponding to an inner surface of the helmet and a bottom surface having a concave curvature configured to receive a user’s head).
Chandler-Mant does not explicitly teach (1) the lattice structure is at least partially composed of a 3D kagome lattice structure arranged in trihexagonal geometry and (2) the plurality of struts include a first region, a second region and a transition region between the first region and the second region, wherein the struts positioned in the first region have a first level of stiffness, the struts in the second region have a second level of stiffness different than the first level of stiffness and the struts positioned in the transition region transition from the first level of stiffness to the second level of stiffness, as presently claimed.
With respect to (1), Pardue teaches a rigid three-dimensionally printed (3D printed) lattice that is open celled and breathable ([0005]; [0043]). The lattice comprises of a plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures ([0045]). Each cuboid structure of the plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures comprises interconnected struts and at least one of a kagome structure ([0010]; [0045]; FIGS. 5-6) (corresponding to each cell of the plurality of cells having a plurality of struts and nodes; the additively manufactured lattice structure is rigid and at least partially composed of a 3D kagome lattice structure arranged in trihexagonal geometry). The cuboid structures and lattice is formed from three dimensionally printed and cured polyurethane resins ([0046]) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice is comprised of polyurethane; the additively manufactured lattice structure is at least partially composed of a polymer where the polymer is composed of one or more of polyurethane). Pardue further teaches the lattice have a lighter weight than conventional foam stacks and are far more breathable ([0044]).
In light of the motivation of Pardue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice of Chandler-Mant be the rigid lattice including a plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures comprising at least one of a kagome structure, in order to provide a lattice layer that is lighter in weight and breathable.
With respect to (2), Chandler-Mant teaches the stiffness of the structure can be altered during the build process to give non-uniform properties (p. 4, lines 28-32). The layer includes a softer region in the front pad region than the rest of the layer (p. 6, lines 18-21).
Feng teaches a composite honeycomb sandwich panel comprising a honeycomb core having a plurality of cells ([0009]; [0015]). The sizes and wall thickness of the plurality of cells are the same or different. Therefore, the nonlinear optimization design of the shape of the honeycomb sandwich panel can be achieved according to actual needs ([0017]).
Feng further teaches if a certain location on the honeycomb sandwich panel needs to withstand greater pressure, the wall thickness can be made thicker. Thus, it is clear the wall thickness is directly related to stiffness (i.e., thicker walls have greater stiffness, while thinner walls have lower stiffness). The cell distribution density can be increased by flexibility adjusting the cell wall thickness, thereby further improving the load-bearing capacity of the honeycomb sandwich panel ([0033]). FIG.2, provided below, shows the honeycomb core 21 including a plurality of connected cells 23, wherein the wall thickness of the cells gradually increases (corresponding to the plurality of struts positioned in the first region have a first level of stiffness and the struts positioned in the second region have a second level of stiffness different than the first level of stiffness to provide different level of impact attenuation than the struts positioned in the first region, and wherein the plurality of structs includes struts positioned in a transition region the additively manufactured lattice structure, the transition region disposed between the first region and the second region, and a stiffness of the struts positioned in the transition region transition from the first level of stiffness to the second level of stiffness).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of Feng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue have a strut thickness be made thinner in areas requiring the softer region and the stiffness/hardness of the layer be increased by flexibly adjusting the strut thickness, in order to allow areas of the layer to withstand different amounts of pressure and provide improved load-bearing capacity to the layer, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 3, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the lattice layer includes a plurality of stacked and interconnected kagome structures (Pardue, [0010]) (corresponding to the 3D kagome lattice structure includes a plurality of layers, each layer of the plurality of layers having the plurality of cells).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 4-5 and 32, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. FIGS. 5-6, provided below, shows the kagome structure comprises tetrahedrons and hexagonal prisms arranged such that each side face of the hexagonal prism is shared with a face of an adjacent tetrahedron (corresponding to each cell of the plurality of cells of the 3D kagome lattice structure has a geometry resembling a parallelepiped; each cell of the plurality of cells includes vertices and at least one vertex is coupled to a tetrahedron; each layer of the plurality of layers of the 3D kagome lattice structure resembles tetrahedrons and hexagonal prisms arranged such that each side face of the hexagonal prism is shared with a face of an adjacent tetrahedron).
In reference to claim 10, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant further teaches the helmet includes an outer shell and the liner for the helmet (p. 1, lines 4-6; p. 2, lines 11-13) (corresponding to a stiffening layer coupled to an outer surface of the additively manufactured lattice structure, the stiffening layer configured to function as at least a part of a shell of the helmet).
In reference to claim 18, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng is substantially identical to the present claimed additively manufactured structure in composition and structure, it is clear that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng would intrinsically be comprised of a material configured to deform non-elastically.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 19, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant further teaches the helmet includes front and rear pads, wherein the pads are additively manufactured three dimensional lattices (p. 6, lines 14-22) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice structure comprises a plurality of lattice pads, each lattice pad of the plurality of lattice pads being comprised of an additively manufactured lattice).
In reference to claim 20, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng further teaches each cuboid structure has a unit cell length ranging from 0.4 cm to 1.15 cm (i.e., 4-11.5 mm) (Pardue, [0045]) (corresponding to the plurality of cells each have a size between approximately 1 mm and approximately 30 mm).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 21, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches each strut has a diameter ranging from 0.04 cm to 0.09 cm and a unit cell length ranging from 0.4 cm to 1.15 cm (Pardue, [0045]) (corresponding to a ratio between a thickness of one strut of the plurality of struts and a size of one cell of the plurality of cells is between 1:4 and 1:120).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pardue further teaches varying the cell unit length and/or strut diameter increases or decreases rigidity of the cuboid structure thereby allowing for lattice elasticity and compressive yield strength to be varied in order to mimic a compression profile of conventional foams ([0046]).
While Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the ratio between the diameter of the strut and a length of the strut as presently claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to adjust the ratio of strut diameter to length, including over the presently claimed, for the intended application and in order to provide the desire elasticity and compressive yield strength to the lattice, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B). It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In reference to claims 22 and 23, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng is substantially identical to the present claimed additively manufactured structure in composition and structure, it is clear that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng would intrinsically be configured to attenuate impact in response to an impact event having a velocity greater than approximately 3.0 m/s and attenuate impact in response to an impact event having an energy level greater than approximately 35 ft-lb.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chilson (US 2015/0047110).
In reference to claims 6-8, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach a 3D structure disposed at least partially within the lattice structure, as presently claimed.
Chilson teaches a helmet formed having a shell, a shock absorbing liner formed from a first shock absorbing material ([0011]). The shock absorbing liner includes one or more cavities having a shape to receive a shock absorbing insert formed from a second shock absorbing material (e.g., a honeycomb material) ([0011]) (corresponding to a 3D structure disposed at least partially within the lattice structure). The honeycomb structure of the insert provides improved shock/impact absorbing protection and ventilation ([0012]; [0014]).
Chilson further teaches the shock absorbing insert is of a material different than the material of the shock absorbing liner (Abstract) (corresponding to the 3D structure comprises a different material than the additively manufactured lattice structure). Chilson further teaches tabs formed in the first shock absorbing material that protrude laterally across the cavity and are configured to retain the insert in the cavity of the first shock absorbing material ([0028]) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice structure includes a plurality of extending portions and the 3D structure includes a plurality of opening configured to receive one extending portion of the plurality of extending portions). Additionally, the liner and insert include a plurality of keys to ensure engagement of the liner and insert, the keys are a plurality of protrusions and recess that fit within each other ([0026]).
In light of the motivation of Chilson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the liner layer of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng include a plurality of cavities filled with a honeycomb insert, in order to provide improved impact absorbing protection and good ventilation in the helmet, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Angular Impact Mitigation system for bicycle helmets to reduce head acceleration and risk of traumatic brain injury (Hansen).
In reference to claim 9, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson does not explicitly teach honeycomb insert is an aluminum honeycomb sheet, as presently claimed.
Hansen teaches a helmet including an Angular Impact Mitigation (AIM) system capable of reducing both linear and angular head acceleration (p. 110). The AIM system comprises an aluminum honeycomb liner that is elastically suspended between an inner liner and an outer shell, the aluminum honeycomb material provides a highly effective crumple zone (p. 110). Hansen further teaches aluminum honeycomb has superior impact absorption properties (p. 113).
In light of the motivation of Hansen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the honeycomb insert of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson be an aluminum honeycomb insert, in order to provide superior impact absorption properties to the helmet, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Moore, III (US 2002/0120978) (Moore).
In reference to claim 11, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the outer shell has a thickness ranging from 0.020 in to 0.100 in and an elastic modulus ranging from 0.5 GPa to 200 GPa, as presently claimed.
Moore teaches a protective helmet having a hard resin outer shell and an energy-absorbing liner (Abstract; [0012]). Moore further teaches the hard outer shell material has an elastic modulus of greater than 300,000 psi (i.e., 2.07 GPa) and is 0.2 to 0.5 mm thick (i.e., 0.008 to 0.02 in) ([0027]; [0029]) (corresponding to a thickness ranging from 0.020 in to 0.100 in and an elastic modulus ranging from 0.5 GPa to 200 GPa).
In light of the disclosure of Moore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the outer shell of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng be a hard outer shell being 0.2 to 0.5 mm thick and having an elastic modulus of greater than 2.07 GPa, in order to provide a helmet to provide protection (Moore, Abstract; [0040]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 20408217) taken in view of evidence by Modulus of Elasticity (Omnexus).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 204048217 with the Office Action mailed 11/07/2023. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claim 12, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. The helmet includes an outer shell and the lattice liner (Chandler-Mant, p. 6, lines 10-12). Chandler-Mant further teaches the helmet can include additional layers located between the user and the lattice layer (p. 6, lines 12-22) (corresponding to a stiffening intermediate layer disposed between the additively manufactured lattice structure and one or more of an outer shell of the helmet and the user’s head).
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the layer has an elastic modulus of approximately 0.5 GPa to approximately 200 GPa, as presently claimed.
Zhang teaches a helmet including a buffer layer, a decorative layer and a reinforcing layer made from nylon material between the buffer layer and decorative layer (Abstract; [0004]). Zhang teaches the helmet provides impact resistance ([0017]).
In light of the motivation of Zhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the additional layer of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng be made from a nylon material, in order to provide reinforcement and impact resistance to the helmet.
As evidence by Omnexus, nylon has a modulus of elasticity of 2.7 GPa (p. 2). Given that the reinforcement layer of Boutin in view of Zhang‘217 comprises nylon, it is clear the reinforcement layer has a modulus of elasticity of 2.7 GPa (corresponding to the stiffening intermediate layer has an elastic modulus of approximately 0.5 GPa to approximately 200 GPa).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enhanced mechanical and electrical properties of carbon nanotube buckypaper by in situ cross-linking (Qin).
In reference to claims 13-15, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the lattice structure comprises a microscopic cross-linked carbon nanotube structure, as presently claimed.
Qin teaches a free-standing carbon nanotube (CNT) film, commonly referred to as buckypaper, having a macroscopic planar structure comprising of entangled of assembled CNT (Introduction, p. 125). Qin further teaches in situ cross-linking of the CNTs changes the Poisson’s ratio of the buckypaper from positive to negative, such that the CNTs are cross-linked to have a auxetic re-entrant honeycomb structure (Abstract; Fig. 5) (corresponding to an auxetic macroscopic cross-linked carbon nanotube structure with re-entrant angles). Quin further teaches the buckypaper is lightweight and has exceptionally high mechanical property (Introduction, p. 125).
In light of the motivation of Qin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng comprise the buckypaper, in order to provide the 3D structure with a material that is lightweight and has exceptionally high mechanical property, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mechanical properties of 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structures realized via additive manufacturing (Yang).
In reference to claim 25, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the lattice structure includes auxetic cell geometries with re-entrant angles ranging from approximately 180 to approximately 270 degrees, as presently claimed.
Yang teaches a 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure (Abstract) (corresponding to auxetic cell geometries). Yang further teaches due to their excellent shear stiffness, indentation resistance, high fracture toughness, high energy dissipation ability and unique acoustic absorption abilities, auxetic structure possess appealing potential for energy dampening structures (Introduction, p. 475).
In light of the motivation of Yang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng include the 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure, in order to provide a structure with excellent shear stiffness, indentation resistance, high fracture toughness and high energy dissipation ability.
Given that the 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structure of Yang includes a plurality of hexagonal bowtie cells, it is clear the angle between the re-entrant struts is greater than 180º and less than 270º (i.e., when θ = 45º; re-entrant angle = 180+90 = 270º) (corresponding to with re-entrant angles ranging from approximately 180º to approximately 270º).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brun (US 2014/0170374).
In reference to claim 26, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the lattice layer includes a structure having internal gaps/spaces (p. 5, lines 27-30).
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach the openings enable management of power and data cabling through the 3D structure, as presently claimed.
Brun teaches a core of a structural material or a sandwich structural material comprising a core ([0001]). The core includes a three-dimensional network of channels ([0009]-[0010]). The channels or the spaces between channels allows the passage of cables and simplifies the installation of sensors or gauges ([0011]).
In light of the motivation of Brun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include three-dimensional network channels in the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng, in order to provide spaces between the channels that allows the passage of cables and simplify instillations of sensors or gauges, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaedler et al. (US 2018/0058531) (Schaedler).
In reference to claim 27, Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach struts and nodes are hollow, as presently claimed.
Schaedler teaches energy-absorption materials and more particularly cellular materials with periodic, ordered micro-truss structures with enhanced energy absorption capabilities for mitigation of injuries from blasts and impacts ([0004]). The micro-truss architecture comprises a repeating unit cell structure having a plurality of struts and nodes connecting the plurality of struts ([0021]). The struts are hollow tubes ([0033]) (corresponding to the struts and nodes are hollow). Schaedler further teaches the hollow tubes allow for thermal management of the helmet ([0089]).
In light of the motivation of Schaedler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the struts and nodes of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng be hollow, in order to ensure the liner is lightweight and allows for thermal management of the helmet, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng, Zhang taken in view of evidence by Omnexus, Burn and Schaedler.
In reference to claim 33, Chandler-Mant teaches a layer adapted for use in personal protection equipment, such as a helmet (p. 2, lines 24-26) (corresponding to an impact attenuation liner for a helmet). The layer is formed by additive manufacturing process and includes an arrangement of internal spaces (p. 2, lines 24-26) (corresponding to an additively manufactured lattice structure; the additively manufactured lattice structure including a plurality of cells). The layer is a liner and has a curved shape intended to generally match the contours of the top of the wearer’s head (p. 2, lines 11-13; p. 5, lines 8-10) (corresponding to configured to be disposed inside a the helmet; the additively manufactured lattice structure includes a top surface having a convex curvature corresponding to an inner surface of the helmet and a bottom surface having a concave curvature configured to receive a user’s head).
Chandler-Mant teaches the stiffness of the structure can be altered during the build process to give non-uniform properties (p. 4, lines 28-32). The layer includes a softer region in the front pad region than the rest of the layer (p. 6, lines 18-21) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice structure includes a first region having a first level of stiffness and a second region having a second level of stiffness different from the first region). The helmet further includes front and rear pads, wherein the pads are additively manufactured three dimensional lattices (p. 6, lines 14-22) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice structure comprises a plurality of lattice pads, each lattice pad of the plurality of lattice pads being comprised of an additively manufactured lattice).
Chandler-Mant does not explicitly teach the lattice structure is rigid and at least partially composed of a 3D kagome lattice structure arranged in trihexagonal geometry, as presently claimed.
Pardue teaches a rigid three-dimensionally printed (3D printed) lattice that is open celled and breathable ([0005]; [0043]). The lattice comprises of a plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures ([0045]). Each cuboid structure of the plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures comprises interconnected struts and at least one of a kagome structure ([0010]; [0045]; FIGS. 5-6) (corresponding to each cell of the plurality of cells having a plurality of struts and nodes; the additively manufactured lattice structure is rigid and at least partially composed of a 3D kagome lattice structure arranged in trihexagonal geometry). The cuboid structures and lattice is formed from three dimensionally printed and cured polyurethane resins ([0046]). Pardue further teaches the lattice have a lighter weight than conventional foam stacks and are far more breathable ([0044]).
The lattice includes a plurality of stacked and interconnected kagome structures ([0010]; [0045]) (corresponding to the 3D kagome lattice structure includes a plurality of layers, each layer of the plurality of layers having the plurality of cells). FIGS. 5-6, provided above, shows the kagome structure comprises tetrahedrons and hexagonal prisms arranged such that each side face of the hexagonal prism is shared with a face of an adjacent tetrahedron (corresponding to each cell of the plurality of cells of the 3D kagome lattice structure has a geometry resembling a parallelepiped; each cell of the plurality of cells includes vertices and at least one vertex is coupled to a tetrahedron; each layer of the plurality of layers of the 3D Kagome lattice structure resembles tetrahedrons and hexagonal prisms arranged such that each side face of the hexagonal prism is shared with a face of an adjacent tetrahedron).
In light of the motivation of Pardue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice of Chandler-Mant be the rigid lattice including a plurality of stacked and interconnected cuboid structures comprising at least one of a kagome structure, in order to provide a lattice layer that is lighter in weight and breathable.
Given that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue is substantially identical to the present claimed additively manufactured lattice structure in composition and structure, it is clear that the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue would intrinsically be comprised of a material configured to deform non-elastically.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue does not explicitly teach the plurality of struts include a first region, a second region and a transition region between the first region and the second region, wherein the struts positioned in the first region have a first level of stiffness, the struts in the second region have a second level of stiffness different than the first level of stiffness and the struts positioned in the transition region transition from the first level of stiffness to the second level of stiffness, as presently claimed. However, Chandler-Mant teaches the stiffness of the structure can be altered during the build process to give non-uniform properties (p. 4, lines 28-32). The layer includes a softer region in the front pad region than the rest of the layer (p. 6, lines 18-21).
Feng teaches a composite honeycomb sandwich panel comprising a honeycomb core having a plurality of cells ([0009]; [0015]). The sizes and wall thickness of the plurality of cells are the same or different. Therefore, the nonlinear optimization design of the shape of the honeycomb sandwich panel can be achieved according to actual needs ([0017]).
Feng further teaches if a certain location on the honeycomb sandwich panel needs to withstand greater pressure, the wall thickness can be made thicker. Thus, it is clear the wall thickness is directly related to stiffness (i.e., thicker walls have greater stiffness, while thinner walls have lower stiffness). The cell distribution density can be increased by flexibility adjusting the cell wall thickness, thereby further improving the load-bearing capacity of the honeycomb sandwich panel ([0033]). FIG.2, provided above, shows the honeycomb core 21 including a plurality of connected cells 23, wherein the wall thickness of the cells gradually increases (corresponding to the plurality of structs positioned in the first region have a first level of stiffness and the struts positioned in the second region have a second level of stiffness different than the first level of stiffness to provide different level of impact attenuation than the struts positioned in the first region, and wherein the plurality of structs includes struts positioned in a transition region the additively manufactured lattice structure, the transition region disposed between the first region and the second region, and a stiffness of the struts positioned in the transition region transition from the first level of stiffness to the second level of stiffness).
In light of the motivation of Feng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the lattice of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue have a strut thickness be made thinner in areas requiring the softer region and the stiffness/hardness of the layer be increased by flexibly adjusting the strut thickness, in order to allow areas of the layer to withstand different amounts of pressure and provide improved load-bearing capacity to the layer.
Chandler-Mant further teaches the helmet can include additional layers located between the user and the lattice layer (p. 6, lines 12-22) (corresponding to a stiffening intermediate layer disposed between the additively manufactured lattice structure and one or more of an outer shell of the helmet and the user’s head).
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng does not explicitly teach a 3D structure disposed at least partially within the lattice structure, as presently claimed.
Chilson teaches a helmet formed having a shell, a shock absorbing liner formed from a first shock absorbing material ([0011]). The shock absorbing liner includes one or more cavities having a shape to receive a shock absorbing insert formed from a second shock absorbing material (e.g., a honeycomb material) ([0011]) (corresponding to a 3D structure disposed at least partially within the lattice structure). The honeycomb structure of the insert provides improved shock/impact absorbing protection and ventilation ([0012]; [0014]).
Chilson further teaches tabs formed in the first shock absorbing material that protrude laterally across the cavity and are configured to retain the insert in the cavity of the first shock absorbing material ([0028]) (corresponding to the additively manufactured lattice structure includes a plurality of extending portions and the 3D structure includes a plurality of opening configured to receive one extending portion of the plurality of extending portions). Additionally, the liner and insert include a plurality of keys to ensure engagement of the liner and insert, the keys are a plurality of protrusions and recess that fit within each other ([0026]).
In light of the motivation of Chilson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the liner layer of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng include a plurality of cavities filled with a honeycomb insert, in order to provide improved impact absorbing protection and good ventilation in the helmet.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson does not explicitly teach the layer has an elastic modulus of approximately 0.5 GPa to approximately 200 GPa, as presently claimed.
Zhang teaches a helmet including a buffer layer, a decorative layer and a reinforcing layer made from nylon material between the buffer layer and decorative layer (Abstract; [0004]). Zhang teaches the helmet provides impact resistance ([0017]).
In light of the motivation of Zhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the additional layer of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng and Chilson be made from a nylon material, in order to provide reinforcement and impact resistance to the helmet.
As evidence by Omnexus, nylon has a modulus of elasticity of 2.7 GPa (p. 2). Given that the reinforcement layer comprises nylon, it is clear the reinforcement layer has a modulus of elasticity of 2.7 GPa (corresponding to the stiffening intermediate layer has an elastic modulus of approximately 0.5 GPa to approximately 200 GPa).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng, Chilson and Zhang does not explicitly teach the openings enable management of power and data cabling through the 3D structure, as presently claimed.
Brun teaches a core of a structural material or a sandwich structural material comprising a core ([0001]). The core includes a three-dimensional network of channels ([0009]-[0010]). The channels or the spaces between channels allows the passage of cables and simplifies the installation of sensors or gauges ([0011]).
In light of the motivation of Brun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include three-dimensional network channels in the lattice structure of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng, Chilson and Zhang in order to provide spaces between the channels that allows the passage of cables and simplify instillations of sensors or gauges.
Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng, Chilson, Zhang and Brun does not explicitly teach the plurality of struts and noes are hollow, as presently claimed.
Schaedler teaches energy-absorption materials and more particularly cellular materials with periodic, ordered micro-truss structures with enhanced energy absorption capabilities for mitigation of injuries from blasts and impacts ([0004]). The micro-truss architecture comprises a repeating unit cell structure having a plurality of struts and nodes connecting the plurality of struts ([0021]). The struts are hollow tubes ([0033]) (corresponding to the struts and nodes are hollow). Schaedler further teaches the hollow tubes allow for thermal management of the helmet ([0089]).
In light of the motivation of Schaedler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the struts and nodes of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue, Feng, Chilson, Zhang and Brun be hollow, in order to ensure the liner is lightweight and allows for thermal management of the helmet, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“The cited references do not teach or suggest a lattice structure that is rigid, as currently claimed. The combination of cited references as proposed by the Examiner would result in a lattice structure that is not rigid but that would instead be made of elastomeric materials resulting in a soft cushion structure, as taught by Pardue. Pardue teaches a structure meant to mimic the conventional foams used in seat cushions on aircrafts. Applicant submits that the use of a foam or cushion like structure as taught by Pardue in combination with Chandler-Mant and Feng would result in a non-rigid structure.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Pardue teaches a rigid lattice and the lattice rigidity may be increased for other desired uses ([0005]; [0043]; [0045]; [0047]). Therefore, it is clear the lattice of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng would be a rigid lattice.
Further, the lattice of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng is substantially identical to the presently claimed additively manufacture lattice structure in composition (i.e., polyurethane) and structure (i.e., at least partially composed of a 3D Kagome lattice). Therefore, the lattice of Chandler-Mant in view of Pardue and Feng would intrinsically be rigid.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
It is not clear how the prior art can disclose the same lattice as presently claimed comprising the same material and structure as presently claimed and not possess the properties claimed. The references teaches the claimed composition and structure. Therefore, the claimed properties would be inherently necessarily be capable of being achieved by the prior art. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support this position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure in that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients and claimed amounts.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights