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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 02/19/26. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record. The pending claims at this time are 1-22. Applicant has amended claim 2 and added new claims 21 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses that there is no disclosure of a flexible adhesion means as recited, and Cagle only discloses a generic "adhesive." Claim 1 does not recite what the adhesive is. This limitation is very broad and does define the adhesive means. Applicant's claim 1 does not recite any properties of the adhesive. If the lattice is hyper elastic the adhesive has to be elastic or it would break. The claims just states that it is flexible, as such if the laminate which is the lattice plus the adhesive plus the other layer they are all flexible. Then the entire laminate is flexible. This argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s next traversal is that there is no disclosure in Cagle that the glue is hyperflexible. Applicant does not define what is meant by hyperflexible glue. The claims seek flexibility and, as such if the laminate which is the lattice plus the adhesive plus the other layers are all flexible then so is the glue, otherwise it would crack or break. They are all flexible. If it's elastic it is flexible. This argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s next traversal (C) is that Cagle would not have been modified by Mayers as it is contrary to Cagle’s purpose intended purpose of compressive strength and stiffness.
Cagle at paragraph 9 emphasizes that the improved microlattice layer and/or structure has optimal mechanical properties for impact absorption because it allows for multiple, repeated compressions. The microlattice layer and/or structure is capable of hyper-elastic or elastic buckling, giving the microlattice layer and/or structure the resilience to recover their energy-absorbing shape and properties after impact. The microlattice layer and/or structure deforms 50% or greater from its original dimensions, which is most commonly referred to as the strain, and returns to its original configuration and/or dimensions. More specifically, the improved microlattice layer and/or structure can exceed strains of 50% or greater before it returns to its original configuration and/or dimensions.
Cagle intended purpose is compression while being still being hyper elastic (flexible). Combining it with the teachings of Mays would give one strength in a specific direction. This argument is not found to be persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being WO 2020/102335 issued to Cagle et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a protective laminate structure comprising: (a) an open fibrous lattice comprising lattice elements defining an open area between the lattice elements; (b) a continuous flexible layer adjacent to the open fibrous lattice; and (c) a flexible adhesion means connecting the continuous flexible layer and the lattice elements of the open fibrous lattice; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Cagle et al who teach a protective laminate structure [microlattice structures of the present disclosure may be incorporated into any desired protective garment necessary for impact protection, see ¶ 0048 equivalent to (a)].
For (b) -Cagle et al teach that the microlattice layer and/or structure 1104 includes filaments integral with one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C, the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may be interconnected, coupled and/or fused with one or more nodes, and/or one or more filaments via adhesive [laminate]. The microlattice layer and/or structure or layer may comprise a single or continuous piece or a plurality of layers may comprise polymer materials (e.g., thermosets or thermoplastics), metal (e.g., aluminum or stainless steel), composites (e.g., carbon fiber, glass fiber reinforced polymer, fiberglass, or ceramic fibers), organic materials (e.g., wood, paper, or card board), ceramic cloth, natural cloth, polymeric cloth, metallic cloth, rubber, plastic, or any combination thereof, ¶¶ 00075, 00093, 000182 and figures 11A, 11B and 11C); and lastly
for (c) a flexible adhesion means connecting the continuous flexible layer and the lattice elements of the open fibrous lattice (the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 [continuous layer] may be interconnected, coupled and/or fused with one or more nodes, and/or one or more filaments via adhesive, Applicant is directed to ¶ ¶ 00009, 00072, 00082, 00084, 00085, 00094 and 000102 & Fig. 11A, 118 and 11C, and, microlattice layer and/or structure has optimal mechanical properties for impact absorption because it allows for multiple, repeated compressions, the microlattice layer and/or structure is capable of hyper-elastic or elastic buckling that is flexible. Figure 5C shows several layers of micro lattices.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the lattice elements comprise tubular elements; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0064 for the description and figure 9A for a representation of the tubular structure set forth below for convenience.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the open fibrous lattice comprises hexagonal lattice elements; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00015, where the instant reference teaches that the geometric shapes may comprise regular or irregular polygons. The geometric shapes may comprise 2D or 3D shapes. The geometric shapes may further comprise a 2D or 3D triangular, cubic, star, octet, hexagonal, diamond, tetrahedron and/or any combination thereof. The plurality of filaments having a cross-sectional shape, the cross- sectional shape may be solid or hollow. The cross-sectional shape may be circular, oval, regular polygon and/or irregular polygon the plurality of interconnected filaments extending from the at least one node.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the lattice elements have a spatially variable fiber density across the fibrous lattice; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0019 of the instant reference, which teaches that alternatively, the plurality of microlattice layers and/or each of the plurality of microlattice layers having the different microlattice densities, microlattice compressive strain, microlattice compressive strength, filament dimensions, filament units, interior angles, and/or the any combination thereof. The plurality of microlattice layers and/or each of the plurality of microlattice layers may be aligned or non-aligned (e.g. offset) with one or more nodes, and/or one or more filaments.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the lattice elements have a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00074, where the instant reference teaches that the thickness can be in the range of 1 mm to 5mm.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the continuous flexible layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00075, Figures 11A, 11B and 11C, where the instant reference teaches that the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may comprise any suitable material that is compatible with the filaments. For instance, one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may comprise polymer materials (e.g., thermosets or thermoplastics), metal (e.g., aluminum or stainless steel), composites (e.g., carbon fiber, glass fiber reinforced polymer, fiberglass, or ceramic fibers), organic materials (e.g., wood, paper, or card board), ceramic cloth, natural cloth, polymeric cloth, metallic cloth, rubber, plastic, or any combination thereof. Additionally, in one embodiment, the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may comprise the same or similar material as the filaments. Alternatively, the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may comprise a different material as the filaments.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the continuous flexible layer has a thickness in a range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00074, where the instant reference teaches that the thickness can be in the range of 1 mm to 5mm.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the flexible adhesion means comprises a hyperflexible glue; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0009 where the instant reference teaches that the one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 [continuous layer] may be interconnected, coupled and/or fused with one or more nodes, and/or one or more filaments via adhesive. Additionally, at ¶ 00073 and 11A, 11B and 11C the microlattice layer and/or structure has optimal mechanical properties for impact absorption because it allows for multiple, repeated compressions, the microlattice layer and/or structure is capable of hyper-elastic or elastic buckling that is being flexible.
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, further comprising: a protective plate occupying at least a portion of the open area of the open fibrous lattice; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00077, Figures 11A and 11B of the instant reference which teaches that one or more material layers 1102, 1106, 1110 may comprise continuous, flat, planar plates or sheet(s) that extends laterally across the entire microlattice layer and/or a portion of the microlattice layer.
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the protective laminate structure of claim 14, wherein the protective plate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of ceramic materials, metal materials, aramids, and combinations thereof; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 00075 and Figures 11A, 11B and 11 C where the instant reference teaches that one of more layers may comprise polymer materials (e.g., thermosets or thermoplastics), metal (e.g., aluminum or stainless steel), composites (e.g., carbon fiber, glass fiber reinforced polymer, fiberglass, or ceramic fibers), organic materials (e.g., wood, paper, or card board), ceramic cloth, natural cloth, polymeric cloth, metallic cloth, rubber, plastic, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks that a multilayer protective structure comprising: a plurality of protective laminate structures according to claim 1 arranged in adjacent layers bound to each other; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00082) & Fig. 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D of the instant reference which teaches that that the first microlattice layer 1202 may be coupled or fused to the second microlattice layer 1204. The interconnection and/or coupling being any coupling methods known in the art, including adhesive, welding, Velcro, etc.
Regarding Claim 17, where Applicant seeks that the multilayer protective structure of claim 16, wherein consecutive pairs of adjacent layers have a staggered lattice relationship relative to each other; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 00057, 00082 and Figures 12A-12D, where the instant reference shows the stacking of the one or more microlattice layers 1202, 1204. These layers may be colinear and/or offset with the preceding or adjacent one or more microlattice layers 1202, 1204. The lattice structures can be positioned offset or staggered, repeating rows, non-repeating rows and/or random rows that are staggered, offset, and/or diagonal alignment from the adjacent or preceding row - the staggered, offset and/or diagonal alignment may be a 15 to 60 degree alignment.
Regarding Claim 18, where Applicant seeks that a protective garment comprising: the protective laminate structure of claim 1; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0004, 00010, 00023, 00048-00049 and figure 14, where the instant reference teaches that the composite is used for protection in a plethora of articles.
Regarding Claim 19, where Applicant seeks that the protective garment of claim 18, further comprising: a padding layer adjacent to the laminate structure; Applicant is directed to ¶ 00065 of the instant reference, where foam is used and can be tailored to be used in combination with any of the layers or further tailored to obtain specific characteristics, such as anti-static, breathable, conductive, hydrophilic, high- tensile, high-tear, controlled elongation, and/or any combination thereof. The material may be uniform throughout the microlattice layer, and/or non-uniform throughout the microlattice layer.
Regarding Claim 20, where Applicant seeks a protective garment comprising:
the multilayer protective structure of claim 16; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ abstract, 00057, 00082 and Figures 12A-12D, where the instant reference shows that the microlattice layer may comprise a single, continuous layer or a plurality of microlattice layer segments. The microlattice layer may be stacked, the stacked microlattice layers may further comprise one or more material layers and/or one or more impact mitigation layers the stacking of the one or more microlattice layers 1202, 1204. These layers may be colinear and/or offset with the preceding or adjacent one or more microlattice layers 1202, 1204. The lattice structures can be positioned offset or staggered, repeating rows, non-repeating rows and/or random rows that are staggered, offset, and/or diagonal alignment from the adjacent or preceding row - the staggered, offset and/or diagonal alignment may be a 15 to 60 degree alignment.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/102335 issued to Cagle et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-12 and 14-20 further in view of USPN 4,555,430 to Mays.
Regarding Claim 2, Cagle et al. discloses the protective laminate structure of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lattice elements comprise loose fiber bundles.
This is remedied by the teachings of Mays et al.
Mays teaches an open fibrous lattice comprising lattice elements defining an open area between the lattice elements (Fig. 2) having lattice elements that comprise loose fiber bundles (lattice structure includes interconnecting fiber bundles 28, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of Cagle et al to include bundles as taught by Mays. The motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate fiber bundles within a lattice structure in order to provide an entangled fiber fabric having significant improvement in tensile strength, [Column 2, Lines 3-7].
Regarding Claims 3 and 21, Cagle et al. discloses the protective laminate structure of claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the loose fiber bundles comprise a plurality of loose fibers (i) substantially unbound to each other, but (ii) bound together as a unit.
For claim 21 see rationale set forth in claim 1 plus rationale for claim 3.
Mays teaches an open fibrous lattice comprising lattice elements defining an open area between the lattice elements [Fig. 2] having loose fiber bundles comprise a plurality of loose fibers (i) substantially unbound to each other, but (ii) bound together as a unit [fiber bundles 28 substantially unbound to one another along a length but bound together at entangled areas 26 to form a lattice structure unit, Fig. 2 and 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structure of Cagle et al. to include bound bundles as taught by Mays. The motivation for doing so would have been to bind fiber bundles as a unit in order to have a more flexible lattice structure.
Regarding Claim 4, Cagle et al. discloses the protective laminate structure of claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the loose fiber bundles comprise a material selected from the group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, rubber fibers, aramid fibers, thermoplastic fibers, and combinations thereof; Applicant is directed to Mays who teaches an open fibrous lattice comprising lattice elements defining an open area between the lattice elements (Fig. 2) having loose fiber bundles that comprise a material selected from the group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, rubber fibers, aramid fibers, thermoplastic fibers, and combinations thereof (entangled fiber fabric includes fibers that can be a variety of natural and synthetic fibers, including nylon, polyester, rayon, cotton, etc., so long as they are capable of being formed into an entangled fabric [see Column 2, lines 3-16[.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the invention to modify the structure of Cagle et al to include bundles of a select material as taught by Mays. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide high strength/flexible bundles in order to create a durable lattice structure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/102335 issued to Cagle et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-12 and 14-20.
Cagle et al. disclose what is set forth above but do not expressively suggest that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, wherein the open area defined by the lattice elements is in a range of 0.7 to 0.95 relative to an area defined by the fibrous lattice;
Cagle et al in do not show this in their first embodiment but in their second embodiment (Figs. 12E-12G), they disclose that wherein the open area defined by the lattice elements is in a range of 0.7 to 0.95 relative to an area defined by the fibrous lattice (microlattice 1222, Figs. 12E-12G). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structure of first embodiment of Cagle et al to include the microlattice of the second embodiment of Cagle et al The motivation for doing so would have been to maximize open space to conserve material and reduce the weight of the structure.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/102335 issued to Cagle et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of USPUB 20190328280 issued to Hammerberg.
Cagle et al. teach what is set forth above but fail to expressively suggest that the protective laminate structure of claim 1, further comprising: a force sensor.
This is remedied by the teachings of Hammerberg.
USPUB 20190328280 issued to Hammerberg is from the same art of endeavor as she teaches making composites used for impact protection.
Hammerberg at ¶¶ 0007-0009 discloses a multi-layer gradated composite material for impact protection and sensing, pressure and/or force data may be transmitted to an external device (e.g., a mobile device or computer) for collection, monitoring, and/or feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of Cagle et al. to include a force
sensor as taught by Hammerberg. The motivation for doing so would have been to a force sensor measuring load on the laminate in order to adjust the overall strength of the lattice structure for a given condition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights