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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-19, 21-24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a multitude of elongate entangled staples forming a front side and a rear side”. Applicant points to page 8, line 12 for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment at page 8, line 12 nor anywhere else in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment.
Claim 1 recites “the threat vector extends through the front side and exists via the rear side of the flexible side”. Applicant points to various figures and parts of the specification for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment.
Claim 3 recites “at least one second endpoint length of at least one staple of the multiplicity of staples extends at least partially towards the front side, and said second endpoint length opposes and varies no more than +/-45 degrees from an additional threat vector, wherein the additional threat vector extends through the front side”. Applicant points to various figures and parts of the specification for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed. While support appears to recite the endpoint varies not more than +/- 45 degrees from the z-axis and first threat vector, support does not exist to recite the endpoint varies +/- 45 degrees from an additional threat vector. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment.
Claim 5 recites “the flexible fabric front side presents at least one curved surface area and the threat vector intersects the flexible fabric within the at least on curved surface area”. Applicant points to page 8, line 10; page 9, line 8 and page 11, line 26 for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed nor in page 8, line 10; page 9, line 8 and page 11, line 26. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment.
Claim 9 recites “threat vector is normal to the front side at an entry point of the front side where the threat vector enters the front side.” Applicant points to page 11, lines 10-15; page 27, line 25 and page 28, line 3 for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed nor in page 11, lines 10-15; page 27, line 25 and page 28, line 3. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment.
Claim 28 recites “each of the multiplicity of the staples comprises a flame resistant layer.” Applicant points to various areas of the specification for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed nor any of various areas of the specification pointed to by Applicant. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment in the exact location or delete the amendment.
Claim 29 recites “the flexible fabric mitigates waveforms extending into the flexible fabric”. Applicant points to page 18, lines 16-24 for support of such an amendment. Examiner has not point support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed nor in page 18, lines 16-24. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or delete the amendment. Applicant is also advised to use the exact wording that is in the specification as originally filed.
Claims 1-14, 16-19, 21-24 and 29 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flexible side" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-14, 16 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (PG Pub. 2003/0008584).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Thomas teaches a flexible fabric comprising a multitude of elongate entangled staples forming a front side and a rear side [Fig. 2] and a multiplicity of staples extending into a Z axis [Fig. 2-4 and 0014-0017] whereby the flexible fabric establishes a thickness between the front side and the rear side. At least one staple of the multiplicity of the staples comprises an entangled location disposed between a first end point length comprising a first staple endpoint a second endpoint length comprising a second staple endpoint and the entangled location is entangled with at least one other staple and the first end point length opposes and varied no more than +/- 45 degrees from a threat vector wherein the threat vector extends through the front side and exists via the rear side of the flexible side as shown in the below figure at the location pointed to for example. The flexible fabric mitigates waveforms extending into the flexible fabric.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
530
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Thomas teaches at least one second endpoint length of at least one staple of the multiplicity of staples presenting a variance of no more than 45 degrees from the threat vector as shown from the Figure 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Thomas teaches at least one second endpoint length of at least one staple of the multiplicity of staples extends at least partially towards the front side, and said second endpoint length opposes and varies no more than +/-45 degrees from an additional threat vector, wherein the additional threat vector extends through the front side. This is exemplified in the Figure 2 above and the additional vector threat can be form a vector 1 degree off of a threat perpendicular to the fabric.
Regarding claim 4, the flexible fabric is positioned between an entity and a threat [0006 and 0040].
Regarding claim 5, the flexible fabric front side presents at least one curved surface area and the threat vector intersects the flexible fabric within the at least on curved surface area [Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 6, a fabric or a shell extends over at least a portion of the front side [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 7, a fabric or a shell extends over at least a portion of the rear side [Fig. 6].
Regarding claim 8, the fabric or shell extends over at least a portion of the front side [Fig. 6].
Regarding claim 9, threat vector is normal to the front side at an entry point of the front side where the threat vector enters the front side [US Pat. 5,736,474 which is incorporated].
Regarding claim 10, the second endpoint varies less than 45 degrees from the vector threat [Fig. 2 from above].
Regarding claim 11, the first endpoint length of the multiplicity of staples at least partially extends from an internal entangled location and towards the front side, and the first endpoint length varies no more than 45 degrees from the threat vector [Fig. 2 from above].
Regarding claim 12, the second endpoint length at least partially extends from the internal entangled location and towards the front side and the second endpoint length varies no more than 45 degrees from the threat vector’s direction [Fig. 2 as set forth above].
Regarding claim 13, the first endpoint length extends from an internal entangled location and towards the front side, and the first endpoint length varies no more than
45 degrees from the threat vector's direction [Fig. 2 as set forth above].
Regarding claim 14, the flexible fabric is positioned between an entity and a shielding element [0040 and Fig. 6].
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Thomas teaches the multiplicity of fibers comprises a flame retardant (considered to be a flame resistant layer) [US Pat. 5,736,474 which is incorporated].
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 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (PG Pub. 2003/0008584) in view of Bhat et al. (PG Pub. 2016/0200882) as evidenced by WO 2015/0130376.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas teaches the fabric comprising an additional flexible fabric of claim 1 (additional nonwoven in Fig. 1 of US Pat. 5,736,464), at least one intermediate layer, the intermediate layer (can be construed as layers 18, 20 or 22 of Fig. 1 of US Pat. 5,736,464) disposed between the flexible fabric of claim 1 and the additional flexible fabric of claim 1; and attaching all the layers together. Thomas is silent regarding the claimed stitching through all the layers. However, given the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and well known common knowledge of stitching layers together to connect them in order to achieve secure attachment of all layers, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stitch together all the layers in order to achieve secure attachment of all layers and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18-19, Thomas is silent regarding the flexible particulate structure. However, Bhat et al. teach a flexible particulate structure comprising a multitude of adjacent particles which are substantially spherical assembled together to present interstitial areas smaller than the diameter of a selected projectile (as Bhat et al. teach small agglomeration and also teaches agglomeration decreases with lower loading and E' increases with lower loadings). Further, based upon this teaching of Bhat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed multitude of adjoining particles assembled together to present interstitial areas no larger than the diameter of a selected projectile in order to ensure improved E' and arrive at the claimed invention. Bhat et al. also teaches the flexible particulate structure comprises a flexible binding medium (elastomer) integrated with the multitude of adjacent particles adapted to maintain the multitude of adjoining particles in a flexible, semi-pinned, semi-static array [Abstract, 0139 and claim 1]. Bhat et al. teach the flexible particulate structure can be incorporated in ballistic armor to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flexible particulate structure in front of the flexible fabric in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flexible particulate structure of Bhat et al. in Thomas in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, The previous combination is silent regarding the particles being irregular in shape. However, given the limited number of options and as evidenced by WO 2015/0130376 it is known in the art to use irregular shaped particles and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use irregular shaped particles.
Regarding claims 21-22, Thomas is silent regarding the particles However, Bhat et al. teach the multitude of adjoining particles are semi-spherical and comprises an outer layer (considered to be the quaternary ammonium compound surfactant that is one the Cloisite 30B nanoparticle) and inner material (considered to be the elastomer between the particles and considered to have high compressive strength) and the outer layer is oriented proximally toward a predicted path of travel of the selected projectile in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particles of Bhat et al. in Thomas in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23-24, Thomas is silent regarding the particles However, Bhat et al. teach the multitude of adjoining particles are semi-spherical and comprises an outer layer (considered to be the quaternary ammonium compound surfactant that is one the Cloisite 30B nanoparticle) and inner material (considered to be the elastomer between the particles and considered to have high compressive strength) and the outer layer is oriented proximally toward a predicted path of travel of the selected projectile in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particles of Bhat et al. in Thomas in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention. Bhat et al. teach fire resistance is important, but is silent regarding the filler element (or elastomer) comprising a flame retardant. However, given the teachings of Bhat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flame retardant in the filler element (elastomer) in order to provide flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 25-26, Thomas is silent regarding the particles However, Bhat et al. teach the multitude of adjoining particles are semi-spherical and comprises an outer layer (considered to be the quaternary ammonium compound surfactant that is one the Cloisite 30B nanoparticle) and inner material (considered to be the elastomer between the particles and considered to have high compressive strength) and the outer layer is oriented proximally toward a predicted path of travel of the selected projectile in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particles of Bhat et al. in Thomas in order to minimize transfer of energy or explosion and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
As noted above the 35 USC 112 rejections have been set forth for the claim amendments which were found to introduce new matter. Applicant is advised to point to support for such amendments or delete the amendments.
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