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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 August 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites, in the last 2 lines, “the LCE pillar comprises and LCE chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen” which appears to be a typographical error. The examiner suggests amending the claim to have this portion of the claim recite “the LCE pillar comprises [[and]] an LCE chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen” and will be examined on the merits as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites “the LCE column has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the LCE pillar so that the LCE pillar is press fit into the LCE column.” There is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Upon review of the originally filed specification, the examiner notes that: (1) “each LCE pillar 116 is press fit into an LCE column 118;” and (2) a diameter of the buckling columns 112, not the LCE pillars 116, is either less than, greater than, or equal to the diameter of the LCE columns 118 are disclosed. See paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0047] and [0048] from the specification, as originally filed. Moreover, upon review of Figure 1B from the instant application, an LCE pillar 116 can be seen as being present within an LCE column 118. Figure 1B fails to illustrate that the LCE column 118 has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the LCE pillar 116. Therefore, there is no support for the LCE column 118 having a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the LCE pillar 116.
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.
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 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/125311 A2 (hereinafter “Weber”), and United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0079280 (hereinafter “Laperriere”).Regarding claim 13 Weber teaches an impact attenuation lattice structure (pad) including a plurality of unit cells (abstract). Weber teaches the impact attenuation lattice structure is included in a helmet application (pad for a helmet) (paragraph [0018]). Weber teaches the lattice structure (pad) comprises a first layer 174 made of a set of unit cells 160 and second layer 176 made of a different set of unit cells 160 (paragraph [0089]). Weber teaches the unit cells 160 form a central column, and different struts may be present within a center space 175 of the column (struts extending between unit cells) (Figure 8 and paragraph [0089]). Weber also teaches the lattice structure may be configured to bend and flex and the unit cells 160 of the lattice structure are configured to undergo compression cycles (paragraph [0093]), which corresponds to a first lattice structure comprising a buckling column and a plurality of struts. Weber teaches the unit cells 104 and struts 106 may be comprised of different materials useful in impact attenuation, such as foam (paragraph [0061] – [0066]). Weber does not explicitly teach the lattice structure comprises a liquid crystal elastomer (LCE) column, an LCE pillar disposed within the LCE column, and the LCE pillar comprises an LCE chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen. Laperriere teaches articles, such as athletic gear (e.g., helmets, etc.) (abstract and paragraph [0002]). Laperriere teaches an impact attenuating lattice structure 140 comprising a framework of structural members (columns and pillars) which may be arranged in any suitable way (paragraphs [0158] – [0161]). Laperriere teaches the lattice structure includes unit cells which may include a structure and/or material to provide a variety of impact absorbing properties thereto (paragraphs [0165] and [0167]). Laperriere teaches a shock-absorbing material, which is configured to deform when the helmet is impacted, includes compressible cells made from a liquid crystal elastomer (LCE) (paragraph [0139]). Laperriere also teaches using a liquid crystal elastomer (LCE) component enhances the impact absorbing performance, e.g., to provide better impact energy dissipation, of the article (paragraph [0246]). Laperriere teaches the LCE component may be an AM LCE material/component (e.g., 3D printed LCE component), where an AM component is disclosed as having a lattice structure (corresponding to an LCE column) (paragraphs [0248] – [0250]). Laperriere teaches an embodiment where a cluster of four column-shaped LCE components (LCE pillar) 400 are embedded within a lattice structure interconnected by struts (AM LCE component having a lattice structure, or the LCE column) (Figure 50 and paragraph [0250]), which corresponds to an LCE pillar disposed within the LCE column. Laperriere teaches a plurality of mesogens 404 (corresponding to a first mesogen and a second mesogen) are part of polymer chains 402 of the LCE (an LCE chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen), and the mesogen groups are aligned within the LCE material in an uncompressed state, where the alignment of the mesogens corresponds to the direction of a compressive force imparted to the LCE material, where the compressive force displaces the mesogenic groups out of alignment which serves to elastically dissipate the energy of the applied force and afterward returns to substantially the original state (paragraph [0247], and Figures 48A-48B). Weber and Laperriere are analogous inventions in the field of lattice structure impact absorbing components for helmet applications. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lattice structure of Weber with the LCE component (including the LCE column and LCE pillar disposed within said LCE column) of Laperriere to enhance the impact absorbing performance, e.g., to provide better impact energy dissipation, of the helmet. The combination of Weber and Laperriere corresponds to the claimed feature requiring the plurality of struts to extend between the buckling and LCE columns.Regarding claim 14 In addition, Weber teaches an embodiment where the lattice structure (pad) 102 is composed of multiple layers of at least two lattice structures, where the at least two lattice structures are stacked vertically such that one lattice structure is vertically adjacent to another lattice structure (paragraphs [0015] and [0088]), which corresponds to the impact attenuation lattice structure (pad) 102 comprises a first lattice structure layer (a first region comprising a first lattice structure) vertically stacked on a second lattice structure layer (a second region comprising a second lattice structure).Regarding claim 15 In addition, Weber teaches the lattice structure 102 may include various sizes and shapes. Cells 104 may be the same shape and size throughout lattice structure 102 or cells 104 may be different shapes and sizes throughout lattice structure 102 (paragraph [0074]), corresponding to the second lattice structure comprises a different lattice pattern from the first lattice pattern.Regarding claim 16 As previously mentioned, Weber teaches an embodiment where the lattice structure (pad) 102 is composed of multiple layers of at least two lattice structures, where the at least two lattice structures are stacked vertically such that one lattice structure is vertically adjacent to another lattice structure (paragraphs [0015] and [0088]), which corresponds to the first region is a layer that extends completely over the second region.Regarding claim 17 As previously mentioned, Weber teaches an embodiment where the lattice structure (pad) 102 is composed of multiple layers of at least two lattice structures, where the at least two lattice structures (first lattice structure layer and second lattice structure layer) are stacked vertically such that one lattice structure is vertically adjacent to another lattice structure (paragraphs [0015] and [0088]). Weber also teaches an embodiment where a lattice structure 102 has a first region with cells 104 having a first geometry and a second region with cells 104 having a second geometry different than the first geometry (paragraph [0069]). In this scenario, the first region with cells 104 having the first geometry of the lattice structure 102 as taught by Weber corresponds to the first lattice structure layer (a first region comprising a first lattice structure) from claim 14, which corresponds to the claimed feature requiring the first region extends only partially over the second lattice structure layer (a second region comprising a second lattice structure) from claim 14.Regarding claim 18 In addition, Weber teaches the cells may be various sizes and shapes (paragraph [0074]). Weber teaches the stiffness of the unit cell can be adjusted by changing the length of the struts and the geometry of the cells (paragraphs [0069] and [0083]). Weber also teaches the struts require a particular aspect ratio between its thickness and length to maintain sufficient impact attenuation properties for the lattice structure (paragraph [0066]). Weber teaches the lattice structure may have a variable thickness, for example, such that lattice structure is thicker at portions where greater impact attenuation is desired (paragraph [0098]). Laperriere teaches the thickness of the elongate members may be predetermined to increase or diminish the mechanical properties thereof (paragraph [0295]). The combination of Weber and Laperriere does not explicitly teach the diameter of the buckling column (from Weber) is greater than the diameter of the LCE column (from Laperriere). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate thickness for: the buckling column (from Weber); and the LCE column (from Laperriere), and observe a comparison between these thicknesses using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a lattice structure exhibiting acceptable mechanical properties for its intended application. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 19 In addition, Weber teaches the cells may be various sizes and shapes (paragraph [0074]). Weber teaches the stiffness of the unit cell can be adjusted by changing the length of the struts and the geometry of the cells (paragraphs [0069] and [0083]). Weber also teaches the struts require a particular aspect ratio between its thickness and length to maintain sufficient impact attenuation properties for the lattice structure (paragraph [0066]). Weber teaches the lattice structure may have a variable thickness, for example, such that lattice structure is thicker at portions where greater impact attenuation is desired (paragraph [0098]). Laperriere teaches the thickness of the elongate members may be predetermined to increase or diminish the mechanical properties thereof (paragraph [0295]). The combination of Weber and Laperriere does not explicitly teach the diameter of the buckling column (from Weber) is smaller than the diameter of the LCE column (from Laperriere). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate thickness for: the buckling column (from Weber); and the LCE column (from Laperriere), and observe a comparison between these thicknesses using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a lattice structure exhibiting acceptable mechanical properties for its intended application. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claim 20 In addition, Weber teaches the lattice structure (including the first lattice structure as defined in claim 14) includes a voronoi geometry (structured Voronoi lattice) (paragraph [0074]).Regarding claim 21 In addition, Laperriere teaches the LCE material includes mesogenic groups which can be: disordered and displaced out of alignment in its compressed state; or ordered and aligned (monodomain LCE) in its uncompressed state (paragraphs [0246] and [0247]).Regarding claim 22 In addition, Laperriere teaches the LCE components 400 are arranged radially relative to the wearer and may be located in a portion of the pad that would face the wear’s temple region when the helmet is worn to enhance lateral impact absorption (LCE pillar oriented in the direction of impacts) (paragraphs [0249] – [0250], and Figures 49-50).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber and Laperriere as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0115483 (hereinafter “Godman”), and further in view of an article titled “Understanding the effect of liquid crystal content on the phase behavior and mechanical properties of liquid crystal elastomers” by Morgan Barnes, et al. (hereinafter “Barnes”).Regarding claims 23 and 24 The limitations for claim 13 have been set forth above. In addition, Laperriere does not explicitly teach a glass transition temperature of the LCE material. Godman teaches shape-programmable liquid crystal elastomers (abstract). Godman teaches the definition of elastomer refers to a polymer having viscoelasticity, where these materials generally have a glass transition temperature less than 20°C (paragraph [0071]). Godman teaches conventional methods for LCE formation operated by increasing the molecular weight between crosslinks in the polymer networks, which increases the molecular weight and suppresses the glass transition temperature and enhances viscoelastic nature in the material (paragraph [0108]). Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the glass transition temperature of the LCE material (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate glass transition temperature of the LCE material of Laperriere through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired enhancement to the viscoelastic nature (Godman – paragraph [0108]) of said LCE material. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). Godman does not teach a nematic to isotropic temperature of the LCE material. Barnes teaches liquid crystal elastomers are stimuli-responsive, shape shifting materials, where a nematic-to-isotropic transition temperature (TNI) may be tuned through variation of the overall liquid crystal mass content (abstract). Barnes teaches the nematic-to-isotropic transition temperature corresponds to an actuation of the LCE which induces shape change, and there is a need to reduce the LCE nematic-to-isotropic transition temperature to expand practical applications of LCEs (page 5074, left hand column under the “1 Introduction” heading). Barnes teaches a group of LCEs having a TNI ranging from 50 to 75°C (page 5077, Figure 2a)). Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the nematic to isotropic temperature of the LCE material (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a nematic-to-isotropic temperature of the LCE material of Laperriere through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired temperature for which the LCE material will undergo actuation for a particular application (Barnes – page 5074, left hand column under the “1 Introduction” heading). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record Weber, Laperriere, Godman, and Barnes while broadly teaching the limitations of the presently claimed invention, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as presently claimed in claim 25. Specifically, none of Weber, Laperriere, Godman, and/or Barnes, when considered alone or combination, teach or reasonably suggest a pad for a helmet, the pad comprising: a first lattice structure comprising a buckling column, an LCE column, and a plurality of struts extending between the buckling and LCE columns; and an LCE pillar disposed within the LCE column, wherein the LCE pillar comprises an LCE chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen, wherein the LCE column has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the LCE pillar so that the LCE pillar is press fit into the LCE column.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued the combination of Weber and Laperriere does not disclose the amendment to claim 13 which requires “the LCE pillar comprises an LC chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Laperriere teaches a plurality of mesogens 404 being part of polymer chains 402. See paragraph [0247] and Figure 48A. The plurality of mesogens 404 taught by Laperriere corresponds to an LC chemistry having a first mesogen and a second mesogen. The applicant argued the remaining claims are patentable over the prior art for the same reasons above. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends the remaining claims are unpatentable over the prior art for the same reasons addressed above, with regards to claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783