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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 21-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2014/0238224) in view of Mason et al. (US 2011/0239851) (Mason) and Hawkins et al. (US 2007/0068755) (Hawkins).
In reference to claims 16, 21-22 and 27, Bird teaches ballistic protection materials to be incorporated into vehicles, such as aircrafts ([0001]; [0012]; [0031]) (corresponding to a structure; the structure is an anti-ballistic aerospace structure). The ballistic protection material includes a strike face layer configured to distort an outer surface on a projectile that contacts the strike face layer ([0004]) (corresponding to a strike layer defining an outwardly facing surface). A ballistic layer is configured to hinder continued movement of a projectile that has passed through the strike face layer and a spacer layer is situated between the strike face layer and the ballistic layer ([0004]; Fig.2) (corresponding to an opposing capture layer defining an inwardly facing surface; and an intermediate structural layer arranged between the strike layer and the capture layer).
Bird further teaches the ballistic layer comprises an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene ([0018]) (corresponding to the capture layer comprises an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene material). Bird further teaches the strike face layer comprises at least one of titanium and a carbon composite ([0015]; claim 4) (corresponding to a fiber reinforced plastic structure; the strike face layer is formed of a fiber reinforced plastic laminate comprising at least one metallic layer; the at least one fiver reinforced plastic layer is a carbon fiber reinforced plastic layer). The strike face layer comprises a plurality of openings through the strike face layer ([0016]; claims 5-6) (corresponding to the at least one metallic layer comprises a plurality of apertures passing all the way through the at least one metallic layer).
Given that the strike face layer including a titanium layer comprising a plurality of openings therethrough of Bird is substantially identical to the present claimed at least one metallic layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the plurality of openings in the titanium layer of Bird would inherently reduce an n-plane stiffness of the at least one metallic layer such that the in-plane stiffness of the at least one metallic layer corresponds to an in-plane stiffness of the spacer layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Bird does not explicitly teach the spacer layer defines a space between the spacer layer and the strike layer, the space comprising one or more reinforcement elements in the form of a plurality of ribs extending between the strike layer and the intermediate structural layer, as presently claimed.
Mason teaches a composite ballistic panel including a structural insulating panel (SIP) between a strike face and a spall section ([0007]). The SIP is used in aerospace vehicles and provides insulation and protection to a structure with a tighter building envelope ([0023]). The SIP includes a core sandwiched between one or more outer layers of fiber-reinforced plastic ([0025]; [0035]; [0047]). Mason further teaches the second ballistic zone made of the SIP utilizes voids to allow the projectile to tumble and yaw and thus creates a larger profile to the spall section ([0040]).
In light of the motivation of Mason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the spacer layer of Bird be a structural insulating panel including fiber-reinforced plastic outer layers sandwiching a core layer, in order to provide a spacer layer that will utilize voids to allow the projectile to tumble and yaw creating a larger profile to the ballistic layer.
Given that the ballistic protection layer of Bird in view of Mason includes a laminated structure having the strike face layer comprises at least one of titanium and a carbon composite with a plurality of openings, the spacer made up of the SIP with fiber-reinforced plastic outer layer sandwiching the core layer and the ballistic layer, it is clear the ballistic protection layer of Bird in view of Mason includes at least the following layers in order a titanium layer with a plurality of openings, a carbon composite, a first fiber-reinforced plastic layer, a core layer, a second fiber-reinforced plastic layer and a ballistic layer. Thus, the strike face includes the titanium layer with the plurality of openings, a carbon composite and the first fiber-reinforced plastic layer while the spacer layer includes the core layer and the second fiber-reinforcing plastic layer wherein the carbon composite and the first fiber-reinforced plastic layer sandwiching the core layer and spaced away from the second fiber-reinforced plastic layer by the core layer (corresponding to the intermediate structural layer is spaced relative to the strike layer to define a space between the intermediate structural layer and the strike layer; the intermediate structural layer and the strike layer together forming a sandwich-structured composite; the intermediate structural layer is formed from a fiber reinforced plastic material).
Hawkins teaches a force diversion apparatus for vehicle armor ([0003]; [0009]). The force diversion apparatus redirects forces during collision, such redirection may be instead of or in addition to, the absorption of forces and the prevention of penetration ([0003]). The apparatus includes a force conversion portion having a plurality of spaced apart machine elements ([0047]). The machine elements have a I beam shape ([0048]; 0050]) (corresponding to one or more reinforcement elements in the form of a plurality of ribs; the plurality of ribs are I beams, blade stiffeners or hat stiffeners). The force conversion portion converts compression forces into shear forces, allowing the strike layer to move in a generally downward and lateral direction when the apparatus is struck by a moving object ([0039]). The apparatus imparts lateral motion to the object, thereby turning a direct impact into a glancing blow, and imparts rotational motion to the object, thereby causing the object to spin ([0039]).
In light of the motivation of Hawkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the core layer of Bird in view of Mason include a plurality of spaced apart machine elements, in order to protect a structure by redirect forces of an impact, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Further, claim 16 defines the product by how the product was made (i.e., co-cured). Thus, claim 16 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 the strike layer, the reinforcement elements and intermediate structural layer are a homogenous structure within the fiber reinforced plastic structure. The presently claimed phrase “homogenous structure” is interpreted as a unitary structure. Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins suggests such a product.
In reference to claim 26, Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. Bird further teaches the layers are stacked and shapeable so that the ballistic protection material can be configured as a non-planar body panel having a desired shape or contour ([0019]) (corresponding to the strike layer, the capture layer, and the intermediate structural layer are non-planar in shape and parallel to each other).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins as applied to claim 16 above, alone or in the alternative further in view of Bergman et al. (US 2014/0076139) (Bergman).
In reference to claim 18, Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. Bird teaches the strike face layer includes the titanium layer and carbon composite, wherein the strike face layer include the plurality of openings through the strike face layer (claims 4-5; [0015]-[0016]). Bird further teaches the strike face layer comprises a mesh or lattice (claim 6; [0016]).
However, Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins does not explicitly teach the plurality of openings are circular perforations, as presently claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the openings in the titanium layer be a plurality of circular perforations extending across the titanium layer, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Alternatively, Bergman teaches an antiballistic article ([0014]). The antiballistic article includes a high expansion material made of metal or metallic alloys, such as titanium alloys ([0017]). The high thermal expansion material may be perforated in geometrical shapes such as circles ([0020]; Fig. 2C) (corresponding to the plurality of apertures are in the form of a plurality of distributed circular perforations extending across the at least one metallic layer). The perforations further decrease the weight of the ballistic article and decrease the compression stress in the article ([0058]; [0059]).
In light of the disclosure of Bergman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the openings be arranged in an array and have circular shapes, in order to ensure the openings provide a reduction in weight and decrease the compression stress in the structure, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Westre et al. (US 5,866,272) (Westre).
In reference to claims 19 and 20, Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above.
Bird in view of Mason and Hawkins does not explicitly teach the titanium layer is embedded on at least one side of the strike face layer, as presently claimed.
Westre teaches aircraft skin panels of a hybrid laminate structure (col. 1, lines 4-5). The hybrid laminates includes layers of titanium alloy foil alternating with layers of polymeric matrix with reinforcing fibers embedded therein (col. 2, lines 30-32) (corresponding to the at least one metallic layer is embedded on at least one side of the strike layer adjacent to at least one fiber reinforced plastic layer). The fibers include carbon fibers (col. 2, lines 66-67; col. 6, lines 12-14) (corresponding to the at least one fiber reinforced plastic layer is a carbon fiber reinforced plastic layer). Fig. 4B shows a laminate structure including a plurality of perforated titanium alloy foil layers alternating with a plurality of fiber reinforced polymer layers, wherein at least one of the titanium alloy foil layers is embedded in the laminate structure (col. 10, lines 30-41).
Westre further teaches the outer surfaces of the hybrid laminates are of the titanium foil, thereby protecting the polymeric composite layers of the laminate from oxidation, water ingress and deleterious effects of ultraviolet light (col. 2, lines 42-48). The hybrid laminate also demonstrate high open-hole tensile and compressive strengths that facilitate mechanical joining of the laminates while minimizing the risk of failure from around a throughbore through which a fastener extends and where forces concentrate (col. 3, lines 32-36).
In light of the motivation of Westre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the strike face layer comprise the hybrid laminate structure, in order to provide a strike face layer that protects from oxidation, water ingress and deleterious effects of ultraviolet light as well as a strike face layer that demonstrate high open-hole tensile and compressive strengths that facilitate mechanical joining of the laminates while minimizing the risk of failure from around a throughbore through which a fastener extends and where forces concentrate, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 16, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 16, which now recites “the plurality of ribs are I beams, blade stiffeners or hat stiffeners”, it is noted that Mason and Sparks et al. (WO 2009/096956) (Sparks), alone or in combination, no longer meet the claim limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Mason in view of Sparks are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights