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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/2025 has been entered.
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 54 and 63 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.
The word “flexible” renders the claims indefinite. Neither the claims nor the specification define what specific level of flexibility is required for a region to be considered flexible. It is unclear what measure of flexibility is being referenced and it is unclear what specific level of said measure is being claimed. It is noted that all, or nearly all, materials may be considered flexible or rigid (to a degree) depending on what is considered flexible or rigid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 14-16, 18-20, 52-54, 56, 57 and 59-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2013/0224428 to Clerici or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2013/0224428 to Clerici in view of USPAP 2005/0003736 to Bentham and/or Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claims 14, 59 and 67, Clerici disclose a wearable body armor, comprising: a fiber composite material comprising layers of unidirectional fibers stacked in a first direction and comprising: an array of consolidated regions spaced apart in a second direction and a third direction crossing the first direction, the array of consolidated regions comprising the unidirectional fibers in each of the layers embedded in a cured matrix; and unconsolidated regions disposed between the consolidated regions and comprising the unidirectional fibers in each of the layers respectively disposed in uncured matrix, the unconsolidated regions having greater flexibility than the consolidated regions, wherein the wearable body armor inherently meets or exceeds a Level III ballistic resistance standard of the National Institute of Justice (NlJ) (see entire document including [0004]-[0012], [0016]-[0018], [0022]-[0023], [0026], [0027], [0030], [0035], [0038] and [0039]). Plus, the examiner takes official notice that it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the direction of unidirectional fibers based on the desired reinforcement direction.
Regarding the consolidated regions being stiff and cured and the unconsolidated regions being flexible and uncured, considering that Clerici discloses that the consolidated regions are subject to a resin heating step similar to that disclosed in the current application, the claimed properties appears to be inherent. Plus, Bentham discloses that it is known in the garment art to construct a garment with areas of different levels of curing based on the desired level of flexibility desired in different areas of a garment (see entire document including [0003], [0009], [0010], [0024]-[0029], [0042], [0048] and [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the body armor of Clerici with cured consolidated areas and uncured unconsolidated areas based on the desired level of flexibility desired in different areas of the garment.
Regarding the claimed ballistic property, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical body armor in terms of materials and structure, the claimed property appears to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the body armor of Clerici with the claimed ballistic resistance to provide body armor capable of providing protection against Level III threats.
Claims 15 and 67, an individual consolidated region among the consolidated regions comprises a polygonal shape along a plane normal to the first direction (Figures and [0018]).
Claim 16, first fibers of a first layer among the layers are oriented at an angle relative to second fibers of a second layer among the layers, the second layer being adjacent to the first layer [0018].
Claim 18, the array includes: a first subset of the consolidated regions arranged in a first pattern; and a second subset of the consolidated regions arranged in a second pattern, the second pattern being different than the first pattern (Figures 2 and [0026]). Plus, Clerici does not limit the size, shape or pattern of the consolidated and unconsolidated areas [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the size, shape and/or pattern of the areas as desired for the intended application.
Claim 19, the consolidated regions are uniformly spaced (Figures 1-3).
Claim 20, Clerici does not appear to mention the wearable body armor comprising a body armor plate but AAPA discloses that it is known in the art to add an armor plate if greater protection is desired (see BACKGROUND section of the specification including [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add an armor plate for added ballistic protection.
Claims 52 and 67, the consolidated regions comprise at least one geometric shape encircled by one or more of the unconsolidated regions along a plane normal to the first direction (Figures 1-3).
Claim 53, the at least one geometric shape comprises at least one of a circle, a triangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, a rhombus, a rhomboid, a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, or an octagon (Figures 1-3).
Claim 54, the unconsolidated regions are flexible about one or more axes ([0004]-[0006]).
Claim 56, the layers comprise a first layer of the unidirectional fibers and a second layer of the unidirectional fibers, and wherein the unidirectional fibers in the first layer are nonparallel with the unidirectional fibers of the second layer [0018].
Claims 57 and 67, Clerici discloses a garment comprising the wearable body armor [0012].
Claim 60, an individual consolidated region of the plurality of consolidated regions comprises a geometric shape of a circle, a triangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, a rhombus, a rhomboid, a pentagon, a hexagon, a heptagon, or an octagon [0026].
Claim 61, the layers of the unidirectional fibers comprise a first layer of the unidirectional fibers and a second layer of the unidirectional fibers, wherein the unidirectional fibers of the first layer are nonparallel with the unidirectional fibers of the second layer [0018].
Claims 62 and 67, the fiber composite material comprises a range of about 3 to about 80 layers of the unidirectional fibers [0008].
Claim 63, the one or more unconsolidated regions are flexible about an axis defined along the second direction or the third direction ([0004]-[0006]).
Claim 64, the fiber composite material is wearable [0012].
Claim 65, the consolidated regions have a common geometric shape (Figures 1-3).
Claim 66, the layers comprise ultra-high- molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) [0022].
Claim 67, the consolidated region is nonoverlapping with the unconsolidated region (Figures 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to body armor comprising consolidated and unconsolidated areas: USPN 5,061,545 to Li and USPN 5,668,344 to Bornstein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789