DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
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. The traversal is on the ground(s) that only 20 claims were pending. This is not found persuasive because regardless of number of claims, the application discloses three independent or distinct species.
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. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner failed to identify which pending claims recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of subspecies A-D. This is not found persuasive because the election is between disclosed embodiments. As set forth on page 5 of the restriction requirement, the requirement is for Applicant to identify the claims encompassing the elected species, not Examiner.
Applicant's election with traverse of subspecies 9, shown in FIG 4A (Applicant fails to identify the claims encompassing the elected subspecies as set forth on page 8 of the restriction requirement) in the reply filed on 06 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the lattice is only one component of these nine embodiments. This is not found persuasive because although the embodiments may have one feature in common, the lattice structure, the lattice in combination with the other structures results in nine independent or distinct combinations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, after a review of the disclosure, claims 3-7 and 17-20 are found to be drawn to nonelected species and are therefore withdrawn by the Examiner for being drawn to a nonelected subspecies.
Claims 3-6 and 17-20 are drawn to subspecies D, shown in FIG 2D. Claims 3 and 17 recite an internal shell. The internal shell 103 is a feature of FIG 2D and not the elected embodiment shown in FIG 2B. Therefore, claims 3 and 17 is withdrawn. Claims 4-6 and 18-20 are withdrawn because they depend from a withdrawn claim.
Claim 7 is drawn to subspecies C, shown in FIG 2C. Claim 7 recites at least one foam pad. The foam pad 51 is a feature of FIG 2C and not the elected embodiment shown in FIG 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Withdrawn
3-7 and 17-20
Pending
1-20
Presented for Examination
1-2 and 8-16
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 22 November 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 plurality of struts forming three dimensional volumetric structures (claim 1), 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.
Claim 9 is indefinite because there is a first attachment portion without a corresponding second attachment portion.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is not clear if the “struts” are in addition to or included in the plurality of struts.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A).
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 forming three dimensional volumetric structures (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), 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).
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 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 (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 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).
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 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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) 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) 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 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A).
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.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothwell et al. (US 3447163 A) 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, for the purpose of providing cell diameters suitable for the specific application (Sacks col 3 lien 15-20).
Conclusion
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