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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 17-19 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (WO 2014/152819).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 17, 24, Rukavina teaches a method of forming a ballistic resistant composite article comprising providing at least one layer including a network of ballistic fibers and a thermoplastic resin matrix [0075]. The thermoplastic matrix includes blocked isocyanate composed of isocyanate with a blocking agent [0086-0088]. The resin matrix is crosslinkable through heating to a temperature that causes the isocyanate to liberate from the blocking agent and the liberated isocyanate react with functional groups on the thermoplastic resin matrix causing crosslinking of the thermoplastic resin matrix [0086-0088 and 0265-0268]. The blocking agent is taught as nonylphenol [0087]. Rukavina teaches heating the at least one layer to at least the deblocking temperature to cause the thermoplastic resin matrix to crosslink. Rukavina teaches the amount of blocked isocyanate remaining is selected in order to control the reaction rate, crosslink degree and properties therefore Rukavina teaches the amount of blocked isocyanate and unblocked isocyanate as a results effective variable and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount of blocked isocyanate and thermoplastic resin not blocked through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, the temperature that causes the isocyanate to liberate is in the claimed range [0086].
Regarding claim 9, the network of ballistic fibers includes aramid fibers [0431].
Regarding claim 10, the thermoplastic resin matrix is a polyurethane is a polyether based urethane, polyester based urethane or a polycaprolactone based urethane [0164-0168].
Regarding claim 18, Rukavina teaches compressing the at least one layer during the heating [Examples and 0259].
Regarding claim 19, the temperature that causes the isocyanate to liberate is in the claimed range [0086].
Regarding clam 25, Rukavina is silent regarding the claimed increase of sonic modulus by crosslinking. However, given Rukavina teaches such a similar article made by such a similar method, the claimed property of increased sonic modulus by crosslinking is necessarily inherent to the article of Rukavina.
Regarding claim 26, the at least one layer includes a first layer and a second layer and at least some of the reactions occur at an interface between the first layer and second layer such that crosslinking chemically joins the first layer and second layer [0465-0468 and 0472].
Regarding claim 27, the thermoplastic matrix includes nucleophilic sites as it is taught as made from polyester polyol.
Regarding claim 28, Rukavina teaches at least one layer which includes 10-1000 layers.
Regarding claim 29, the at least one layer is a rigid hard ballistic composite panel.
Claims 12-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (WO 2014/152819) in view of Tam et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0225022).
Regarding claim 12-14, 22-23, Rukavina teaches a ballistic resistant composite comprising at least one layer including a network of ballistic fibers and a thermoplastic resin matrix [0075]. The thermoplastic matrix includes blocked isocyanate composed of isocyanate with a blocking agent [0086-0088]. The resin matrix is crosslinkable through heating to a temperature that causes the isocyanate to liberate from the blocking agent and the liberated isocyanate react with functional groups on the thermoplastic resin matrix causing crosslinking of the thermoplastic resin matrix [0086-0088 and 0265-0268]. The blocking agent is taught as nonylphenol [0087]. Rukavina teaches the amount of blocked isocyanate remaining is selected in order to control the reaction rate, crosslink degree and properties therefore Rukavina teaches the amount of blocked isocyanate and unblocked isocyanate as a results effective variable and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount of blocked isocyanate and thermoplastic resin not blocked through routine experimentation.
Rukavina is silent regarding the claimed uhmwpe fibers. However, Tam et al. teaches uhmwpe fibers because they are high tenacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the uhmwpe fibers of Tam in Rukavina because they are high tenacity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the thermoplastic resin matrix is a polyurethane is a polyether based urethane, polyester based urethane or a polycaprolactone based urethane [0164-0168].
Prior Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2016/0289891 teaches a ballistic resistant armor article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights