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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues Yeh does not disclose or render obvious unit cells that include a plurality of struts defining a polyhedral or tetrahedral cell in which the plurality of struts project into and/or connect with adjacent cells as generally recited in the current claims. The applicant further argues Yeh fails to teach the limitations of newly added claims 21-23.
This is not persuasive as the unit cells of Yeh are an auxetic and a honeycomb cell both of which are polyhedrals and their structs connect with adjacent cells. Thus, the limitations are met as the project limitation is not required as the project limitation is framed as and/or. Applicant appears to be giving additional limitations to the word struct beyond the broadest ordinary definition and it is noted that there are no limitations to the thickness of the stru ts set forth in the claim. Applicant arguments further seem not to follow the information set forth in the instant spec for example in Fig. 1 has similar cells types as Yeh. Thus, the rejections stand as set forth below.
Regarding the new claims 21-23, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Yeh does not teach the limitations set forth in claims 21-23.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US 20190202163 A1), herein Yeh.
In regards to claims 1-2, Yeh teaches an additively manufactured lattice structure [0002, 0004, Fig. 3-reproduced below]. Yeh teaches the lattice structure comprises three lattices, two with auxetic unit cells (at the edges of structure) and one with hexagonal cells (in the center of the structure) [0004, claims 1, 8, Fig. 3]. Between the two structures is a transition/gradient structure in which the cells gradually shift from one cell type to the other through intermediate cells (around 112) on each side of the center cells [0031-0032, Fig. 3, claims 10-11]. Both the auxetic and the hexagonal unit cells are considered polyhedral and have struts that connect to adjacent cells [Fig. 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
670
977
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Claim 4 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having two lattice structures and a transition segment . The reference suggests such a product. Further the reference suggests the product is 3D printed [0030, claim 15].
In regards to claim 5, Yeh further teaches the materials of the lattice are metal polymer or composite [0029].
In regards to claim 6, Yeh further teaches the lattice is made to be flexible and distribute force from an impact [0005, 0029, 0053].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20190202163 A1), herein Yeh., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vernon (US 20170203516 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Yeh fails to teaches the mesh lattices used in the composite lattice component of Yeh.
Vernon teaches meshes for lattice structures for 3D printed objects []Abstract].
Vernon teaches that the meshes may be hexahedral or tetrahedral [0044, Claim 9-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the meshes of Vernon to generate the lattice models for Yeh. One would have been motivated to do so as Vernon teaches that the meshes are conventionally known for lattice structures and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20190202163 A1), herein Yeh, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bitonti et al. (US 20190059155 A1), herein Bitonti.
In regards to claims 8-9, Yeh teaches the lattice structure is useful for protective gear, aerospace, automotive components, 3C shell parts, medical materials, and creative products with complex structure [0002]. Yeh doesn’t expressly teach that the lattice structure is part of a brace or wearable protective device.
Bitonti teaches a leg brace comprising a lattice structure having first and second unit cells [Abstract, 0035-0036, claim 16, Figs. 5A-5B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the lattice structure of Yeh as part of a leg brace as taught by Bitonti. One would have been motivated to do so as Bitonti teaches this is a conventional use for such a lattice and it would benefit from the lightweight structure of the lattice of Yeh.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20190202163 A1), herein Yeh, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Valdes (US 9,580,032 B1).
In regards to claims 8 and 10-11, Yeh teaches the lattice structure is useful for protective gear, aerospace, automotive components, 3C shell parts, medical materials, and creative products with complex structure [0002]. Yeh teaches the invention provides a three-dimensional structure to achieve the effects of lightweight and excellent protection against impact [0003]. Yeh doesn’t expressly teach that the lattice structure is part of a cushion as part of a seat or automotive component.
Valdes teaches an impact adsorption cushion for a vehicle safety seat [Abstract, Title, Fig. 9]. The impact cushion comprises a first layer of a core comprising cushioning cells and a second layer comprising shock absorbing materials [Col 5 lines 5-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the lattice structure of Yeh as the first and second layers of the core of the impact cushion of Valdes. One would have been motivated to do so as Yeh teaches the lattice structure which in for impact absorption and the spreading of stress are features which would be useful in the design of the layers of the impact cushion of Valdes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 21-23 are 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. The prior art fails to teach the transition cell configuration as set forth in the claim 3 and the lattice configurations set forth in clams 21-23 wherein the struts terminate on the face of the cells.
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights