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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08 June 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1-4, 7-10, 13-18
Withdrawn
3-7 and 17-20
Pending
1-20
Presented for Examination
1-2 and 8-16
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections
Examiner is persuaded by Applicant’s argument that the plurality of struts forming three dimensional volumetric structures (claim 1) is supported by the drawings and the objections are withdrawn. However, the drawings fail to show which are the first and second sets of volumetric structures, the first diameter, or the second diameter.
112(b) Rejections
A. Applicant argues the disclosure supports the integral shell as an outermost surface, as shown in FIGS 2C and 2D. FIGS 2C and 2D are embodiments other than the elected embodiment. The figures fail to show the elected embodiment has an integral shell as an outermost surface. Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to recite the integral shell on the outermost surface of the lattice structure.
B.-C. Overcome by the amendment and withdrawn.
D. Applicant’s arguments that para. 0052 supports the FIG 2B embodiment as having an integral comfort layer as a portion of the lattice structure is persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
102 Rejections
Overcome by the amendments and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitation “additively-manufactured” and “circular cross-section” are addressed in the rejections below.
Applicant argues Bothwell discloses a single layer of lattice structure combined with a layer of non-lattice structure. Examiner agrees, and this is what is required by the claim. The claims do not require plural layers of lattice structure. The claims require a lattice structure (this is the combination of Bothwell’s layers, which includes honeycomb layer 18) comprising a plurality of struts forming three dimensional volumetric structures (the individual tubes of honeycomb correspond to the plurality of struts), and the lattice structure further comprising a plurality of internal layers. There is no requirement that the plurality of internal layers also have a lattice. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, where the lattice structure comprises layers that are not themselves a lattice, such as internal shell. For example, claim 3 recites “the lattice structure comprises an internal shell” and there is no disclosure of the internal shell itself being a lattice.
Applicant argues Bothwell’s rigid shell 12 is not “an integral shell as an outermost surface of the additively-manufactured lattice structure.” Bothwell FIG 2 clearly shows 12 “as” an outermost surface of the lattice structure, the lattice structure being the combination of helmet layers. As set forth above, there is no claim requirement that the rigid shell is also a lattice.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues the combination would result in providing a thin cap over Bothwell’s outer skin which would not result in a rigid shell removably attached directly to a lattice structure. The claim requires the shell be removably attached, not removably attached “directly” as Applicant argues. Bothwell as modified reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues Rickard discloses a neck pad, not an internal pad. Rickard is providing as a teaching that it is known to provide pads of increased thickness in an area corresponding to an occipital bone, not as a teaching of a neck pad. Providing a pad of increased thickness is a matter of obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues Bothwell does not disclose two types of impact absorption because Bothwell teaches a single layer 18. This is not persuasive. Bothwell teaches multiple layers, each with distinct properties and functions. Protection from rotational and linear impacts are matters of obviousness in the head protection art.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues Sacks’ innermost layer is foam which does not comprise struts. This is not commensurate with the rejection. Examiner is not relying on the foam layer to teach struts of different diameters, but the honeycomb layer. An “integral comfort layer” as recited in claim 16 could comprise a honeycomb layer or a honeycomb layer in combination with a foam layer.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant argues that after Applicant’s election of 10/6/26, Applicant filed a supplemental election on 11/10/26 that was not considered.
First, the supplemental election was received after the statutory period for reply.
Second, the supplemental election, which states claims 1-20 correspond to subspecies 9, would not have affected the nonfinal rejection, as claims 1-20 were evaluated to determine whether they read on the elected subspecies after receipt of the election and prior to examination.
In the 6/8/2026 response, Applicant again argues against the restriction requirement. The arguments have been considered and are not persuasive, for all of the reasons set forth in the 12/8/2025 nonfinal rejection.
The requirement was properly made final.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, the helmet shown in FIGS 5a-6B and corresponding to claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of subspecies B, shown in FIG 2B and corresponding to claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of subspecies 9, shown in FIG 4A in the reply filed on 06 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second sets of volumetric structures (claim 14), the plurality of struts forming volumetric structures and struts having a first diameter (claim 15), struts having a second diameter (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites an integral shell “as” an outermost surface of the lattice structure, which is inconsistent with the disclosure. FIG 2B shows a lattice structure 100 and a shell 201 “on” an outermost surface of the lattice structure, but not “as” an outermost surface of the lattice structure. The shell comprises the outermost surface of the combination of the shell and lattice structure, but not the outermost surface of the lattice structure. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by an integral shell as an outermost surface.
Similar to claim 1 above, claim 16 is indefinite for reciting an integral comfort layer disposed “as” a portion of the lattice structure. In FIG 2B, the lattice portion 100 and comfort layer 102 appear to be distinct layers, with the comfort layer being disposed on a portion of the lattice structure. It is not clear what is meant by the comfort layer being “disposed as a portion of the lattice structure.”
All of the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) in view of Sajick (WO 2005060778 A2).
As to claim 1, Bothwell discloses an article of protective equipment for protecting a body part of a user (helmets, title), the article of protective equipment comprising:
a lattice structure comprising a plurality of struts with a first diameter forming three dimensional volumetric structures (the lattice structure comprises honeycomb layer 18 and/ or the foam-generating material disclosed in col 2 line 65-72 and/ or foam 19 and/ or the layers disclosed in col 3 line 15-20, where honeycomb layer 18 comprises the plurality of struts with a first diameter forming three dimensional volumetric structures), the lattice structure comprising: a plurality of internal layers (honeycomb layer 18 and/ or the foam-generating material disclosed in col 2 line 65-72 and/ or foam 19 and/ or the layers disclosed in col 3 line 15-20), each internal layer having at least one different physical property from the other internal layers (the internal layers are different materials and inherently have at least one different physical property), wherein the plurality of internal layers comprises at least one internal layer having physical properties such that the at least one internal layer is capable of compressing more than at least one other internal layer in response to an impact to the article of protective equipment (the internal layers are different materials and one inherently compresses more than one other).
Bothwell does not disclose the plurality of struts having a circular cross-section.
Sajic teaches a similar helmet (“Preferably the body protecting device comprises a safety helmet.”) including a plurality of struts having a circular cross-section with a first diameter and forming three dimensional volumetric structures (tubes 22 in FIG 5).
Bothwell discloses a honeycomb layer 18 where the struts have a hexagonal cross-section. Sajic teaches the struts have a circular cross-section, which improves over the hexagonal cross-section to achieve “the desirable failure mode of progressive buckling,” avoiding instability, and providing support in any direction normal to the axis of the tube/ strut.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of struts having a circular cross-section as taught by Sajic, in order to protect the head of the wearer by absorbing impact energy (Sajic abstract).
The recitation “additively-manufactured” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).
As to claim 2, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure further comprises an integral comfort layer disposed on a proximal side of the lattice structure that is closest to the body part when worn (cloth lining 17 in FIGS 1-2 or cradle 21 in FIG 3).
As to claim 8, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure further comprises an integral shell as an outermost surface of the lattice structure (rigid shell/ skin 12 which is glass-fiber reinforced plastic material which is a material having at least some degree of rigidity, see col 2 line 25-35).
As to claim 9, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein an outermost surface of the lattice structure comprises at least one first attachment portion for attaching a rigid shell (fig 1, any “portion” of the outermost surface of the lattice structure is “for attaching” rigid shell/ skin 12 which is glass-fiber reinforced plastic material which is a material having at least some degree of rigidity, see col 2 line 25-35; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
As to claim 11, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 9, wherein the rigid shell comprises multiple separate portions (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 111, 112, 113, etc.; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
As to claim 13, Bothwell does not expressly disclose the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure comprises at least one of a linear energy absorption layer or a rotational energy absorption layer.
Bothwell does disclose the lattice structure absorbs energy and one of ordinary skill would expect it to be at least one of a linear energy absorption layer or a rotational energy absorption layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide at least one of a linear energy absorption layer or a rotational energy absorption layer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide at least one of a linear energy absorption layer or a rotational energy absorption layer, for the purpose of protecting the wearer’s head from impacts.
As to claim 14, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure comprises: a first set of volumetric structures disposed in a first orientation such that the first set of volumetric structures is configured to deflect a first force from a first direction to a second direction; and a second set of volumetric structures adjacent to the first set of volumetric structures, wherein the second set of volumetric structures is disposed in a second orientation different from the first orientation such that the second set of volumetric structures is configured to deflect a second force from a third direction to a fourth direction (col 1 line 60-70 discloses cells disposed at angles which differ in different areas of the cells, which is a disclosure of structures in more than one orientation, capable of and intended to deflect a force).
As to claim 15, Bothwell discloses an article of protective equipment for protecting a body part of a user (helmets, title), the article of protective equipment comprising: a lattice structure comprising a plurality of struts forming volumetric structures (the lattice structure comprises honeycomb layer 18 and/ or the foam-generating material disclosed in col 2 line 65-72 and/ or foam 19 and/ or the layers disclosed in col 3 line 15-20, where at least honeycomb layer 18 comprises a plurality of struts forming volumetric structures), the lattice structure comprising: a plurality of internal layers (honeycomb layer 18 and/ or the foam-generating material disclosed in col 2 line 65-72 and/ or foam 19 and/ or the layers disclosed in col 3 line 15-20), each internal layer having at least one different property (the internal layers are different materials and inherently have at least one different property), wherein the plurality of internal layers comprises at least one internal layer comprising subset of the struts having a first diameter (18) such that the at least one internal layer is capable of compressing more than at least one other internal layer in response to an impact to the article of protective equipment (capable of compressing and intended to compress, see col 1 line 65-70).
Bothwell does not disclose the subset of the plurality of struts having a circular cross-section.
Sajic teaches a similar helmet (“Preferably the body protecting device comprises a safety helmet.”) including a subset of the plurality of struts having a circular cross-section with a first diameter and forming three dimensional volumetric structures (tubes 22 in FIG 5).
Bothwell discloses a honeycomb layer 18 where the struts have a hexagonal cross-section. Sajic teaches the struts have a circular cross-section, which improves over the hexagonal cross-section to achieve “the desirable failure mode of progressive buckling,” avoiding instability, and providing support in any direction normal to the axis of the tube/ strut.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a subset of the plurality of struts having a circular cross-section as taught by Sajic, in order to protect the head of the wearer by absorbing impact energy (Sajic abstract).
The recitation “additively-manufactured” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) in view of Sajick (WO 2005060778 A2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US 4599752 A).
As to claim 10, Bothwell does not disclose the article of protective equipment of claim 9, wherein the rigid shell is removably attached to the lattice structure.
Mitchell teaches a similar article of protective equipment (helmet, title), including a removably attachable rigid shell (cap 1, claim 1 section (a) recites a thin rigid plastic cap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the lattice structure with a removably attached rigid shell, for the purpose of allowing the color of the equipment to be changed to permit the equipment to be visually distinguished (Mitchell abstract).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) in view of Sajick (WO 2005060778 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rickard (US 3591863 A).
As to claim 12, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 1, wherein the article of protective equipment comprises a helmet (title), but does not disclose a thickness of at least one of the internal layers is increased in an area corresponding to an occipital bone of the user when worn.
Rickard teaches a similar helmet (helmet, title), including it is known in the art to provide a thickness of at least one of the internal layers is increased in an area corresponding to an occipital bone of the user when worn (“thick neck pad,” col 1 line 65 – col 2 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the area corresponding to an occipital bone of the user with at least one of the internal layers having increased thickness, for the purpose of providing a known means of reducing the possibility of neck injuries (Rickard col 1 line 65-70).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) in view of Sajick (WO 2005060778 A2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sacks (US 6336220 B1).
As to claim 16, Bothwell discloses the article of protective equipment of claim 15, wherein the lattice structure comprises an integral comfort layer disposed as a portion of the lattice structure that is closest to the body part when worn (15 or 16 in FIGS 1-2), but does not disclose the integral comfort layer comprises struts having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
Sacks discloses an article of protective equipment (title) including layers comprising struts (col 3 line 10-15 discloses “cells in the multicelled element”) and further discloses a plurality of diameters (col 1 line 30-35 discloses “the walls need not be of uniform thickness” and walls of different thicknesses would obviously result in the cells having different diameters). Furthermore, Sacks discloses selecting the diameter depending on the specific application (col 3 line 15-20).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be desirable for the impact absorption layer and comfort layer to have different properties in order to best function as intended, including having struts of different diameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the integral comfort layer with struts having a second diameter less than the first diameter (e.g., by providing Bothwell’s layers 15/16 with an additional honeycomb layer such as Sacks’), for the purpose of providing cell diameters suitable for the specific application (Sacks col 3 line 15-20).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights