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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 requires “wherein the first lattice structure has a first thickness and the second lattice structure has a second thickness that is different from the first thickness, which is already required by claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelley (US 2016/0327113) in view of Jacobsen et al. (US 9,116,428) and Kitahara et al. EP (0,985,356).
Regarding claim 1, Shelley teaches materials for absorbing mechanical impacts and may be applied to protective articles including helmets and shin pads (Paragraph [0002]; [0051]). The materials may include cells that form lattices which are stacked and the individual cells may vary in thickness, shape, or the like within a column or other array (“functionally graded structure for a protective device” & “wherein the plurality of lattice structures are arranged in a stack”) (Paragraphs [0077]-[0081]; Fig. 5). The lattice structures, which are stacked, may have different configurations, including thickness, length, cross-sectional shape, profile, cell shape, cell size, and the like in order to control firmness and softness depending on the intended use for absorbing mechanical energies (“a plurality of lattice structures with different compression response properties, a first geometry and compression response property of a first lattice structure of the plurality of lattice structures being different from a second geometry and compression property of a second lattice structure of the plurality of lattice structures”) (Paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Shelley is silent with respect to the stacked structure having the first lattice structure having a first thickness and the second lattice structure having a second thickness that is different from the first thickness.
Shelley is further silent with respect to the first lattice structure directly interconnecting with the second lattice structure through a plurality of individual nodes and wherein the first lattice structure includes a plurality of first segments connected to the plurality of nodes and wherein the first segments define a first set of pores having a first quadrilateral shape and wherein the second lattice structure includes a plurality of second segments connected to the plurality of nodes and wherein the second segments define a second set of pores having a second quadrilateral shape and wherein the first segments extend from the nodes at an acute angle to that of the second segments whereby the first quadrilateral shape is oriented at the acute angle to the second quadrilateral shape.
Jacobsen teaches a micro-truss-based structures intended to absorb energy from impacts (Col. 1, Lines 6-10). The structures are formed from a truss core having a hierarchical structure including first, second and third truss elements which are interconnected at nodes in order to form a continuous material (Col. 4, Lines 11-35). The first, second and third truss element sections transition from micro-trusses to macro-trusses in order to provide the impact absorptions wherein each of the trusses appear to increase in thickness from the micro-truss sections to the macro-truss sections (Col. 13, Lines 10-26; Figs. 7c and 7d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the stacked structure such that the stack transitions in a manner similar to the hierarchical structure having a first, second and third patterns of micro-trusses to macro-trusses and are connected at nodes in order to form a continuous structure which is designed to absorb impacts, as taught by Jacobsen. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the stacked, continuous structure wherein the first, second and third patterns have different thicknesses and the trusses of each layer would form pores within each layer, as shown in figures 7c and 7d of Jacobsen in order to provide the improved impact resistance. Lastly, as shown in figures 7c and 7d, each of the patterns form acute angles at the nodes interconnecting each of the patterned layers.
Shelley is silent with respect to the order of the lattice structures in the stack is from a least stiff lattice structure to a most stiff lattice structure and wherein the first lattice structure defines a hemispherical shape having the second lattice structure on top.
Kitahara teaches helmets (Paragraph [0001]). The helmets include a shell and a shock absorbing liner which may be formed as a single layer or in a multilayer configuration (Paragraphs [0007]-[0011]). The double layer configuration has the highly foamed layer, having less density, closer to the head of the user, and the less foaming layer, having a higher density, closer to the shell, in order to disperse shocks and effectively absorb pressure (Paragraph [0012]). Even further, the helmets with these layers take the shape of a helmet, which defines a hemispherical shape (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the structures of Shelley, which may be used for helmets, with the hierarchical structures of Jacobsen, such that the order of the stack/patterns has the higher density material on top of the lower density material, resulting in a stack from least stiff to most stiff, allowing for the structures to disperse shocks and effectively absorb pressure, as taught by Kitahara. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the structures have a helmet shape which defines a hemispherical shape.
Regarding claim 7, Shelley teaches the structures as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, each of the patterns/layers within the stack have different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 8, Shelley teaches the structures as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Shelley teaches the lattice structures, which are stacked, may have different configurations, including thickness, length, cross-sectional shape, profile, cell shape, cell size, and the like in order to control firmness and softness depending on the intended use for absorbing mechanical energies.
Regarding claim 9, Shelley teaches the structures as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figures 7c and 7d of Jacobsen, the changes in thickness from the first patterned layer to the third patterned layer are non-uniform.
Regarding claim 13, Shelley teaches the structures as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 5 of Shelley and as taught by Jacobsen above, the stacked structures may have three layers.
Regarding claim 14, Shelley teaches the structures as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, both Shelley and Kitahara teach structures which serve as protection structures in helmets.
However, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to a functionally graded structure for a protective device and not the protective device itself. Therefore, the limitaitons concerning the protective device having an outer shell and an inner shell with the plurality of lattice structures between only need to be considered such that the structures of Shelley are capable of being used in such a way. Due to Shelley teaching the structures being used in helmets, the structures are capable of being placed between an outer and an inner shell.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,095. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘095 teaches each of the limitations of instant claim 1. Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent ‘095 additionally teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 13-14.
Claims 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,095 in view of Shelley (US 2016/0327113) and Jacobsen et al. (US 9,116,428).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent ‘095 teaches the limitations as required by claim 1 discussed above, but is silent with respect to the limitations required by claim 8 being a thickness of a segment in first lattice structure varies from one end of the first lattice structure to another end of the first lattice structure.
Shelley teaches lattice structures as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections. The lattice structures, which are stacked, may have different configurations, including thickness, length, cross-sectional shape, profile, cell shape, cell size, and the like in order to control firmness and softness depending on the intended use for absorbing mechanical energies (Paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the structures in the helmets of U.S. Patent ‘095 such that the thickness of the first lattice structure varies from one end to another in order to control firmness and softness as taught by Shelley.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent ‘095 teaches the limitations as required by claim 1 discussed above, but is silent with respect to the limitations required by claim 9 being a grading of lattice structures from one lattice structure to another lattice structure in the plurality of lattice structures is non-uniform.
Shelley teaches lattice structures as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections. The lattice structures, which are stacked, may have different configurations, including thickness, length, cross-sectional shape, profile, cell shape, cell size, and the like in order to control firmness and softness depending on the intended use for absorbing mechanical energies (Paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Jacobsen teaches a micro-truss-based structures intended to absorb energy from impacts as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections above. As illustrated in figures 7c and 7d of Jacobsen, the changes in thickness from the first patterned layer to the third patterned layer are non-uniform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the structures in the helmets of U.S. Patent ‘095 such that the grading of the first lattice structure is non-uniform in order to control firmness and softness depending on the intended use for absorbing mechanical energies/impacts as taught by Shelley and Jacobsen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights