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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 3, 5, 617, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 12, 16, and 19 have been amended and claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 4, 7 – 16, and 19 – 21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (5,480,706) in view of Tam et al. (2013/0059494).
Li et al. is drawn to a ballistic resistant composite comprising at least one first layer and one second layer adjacent to the first layer (abstract). Li et al. discloses in Example 3 a laminate comprising five Spectra (which is a trade name for UHMWPE) prepregs that alternating with six Kevlar (which is a trade name for aramid) fabric prepreg layers (columns 17 and 18). The Kevlar prepregs were woven in a plain weave (Example 3). The Spectra prepregs were molded under pressure and temperature at 125ºC (Example 1). The alternating structure would include an aramid layer between two adjacent UHMWPE layers. The structure would also include a UHMWPE layer on top of an aramid layer and on the bottom of an aramid layer.
Additionally, Li et al. teaches that wetting and adhesion of the fibers in layers 12 and 14 is improved by corona discharge treatment or plasma treatment using known machines (column 8, lines 17 – 27). While Li et al. teaches using plasma treatment that are commonly known in the art, Li et al. fails to teach specific types of treatments. Tam et al. is drawn to a ballistic fabric. Tam et al. teaches that the selection of gas is important for desired surface treatment (paragraph 32). Tam et al. discloses that there are different plasma gases and oxygen plasma is used to introduce carboxyl and hydroxyl groups during treatment (paragraph 32). Thus, it would be obvious to use oxygen plasma, as taught by Tam et al. as the type of plasma treatment used on the fabric of Li et al., since Li et al. teaches plasma treatment is beneficial and Tam et al. discloses that oxygen plasma is desirable. Thus, claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected.
With regards to the limitation that the weight ratio of the first polymer material to the second polymer material is between 2:1 to 1:2, Li et al. fails to teach the weight of the layers in the composite. While Li et al. fails to teach the weight of the polymer materials, it would have ben obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the penetration resistance while minimizing the overall weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose a weight ratio wherein the layers each contribute to the final properties of the fabric so that the fabric has good penetration resistance and is light weight. Further, since Li et al. fails to teach specific weight for each layer one of ordinary skill in the art would start with layers having similar amounts of each polymer material and then modifying the weights based on the final properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose weight ratios between 2:1 to 1:2. Thus, claim 19 is rejected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Tam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (2014/0065913).
The features of Li et al. and Tam et al. have been set forth above. Li et al. discloses that the fibers can be treated using a plasma treatment or corona discharge. However, Li et al. fails to teach that other treatments such as flame, a supercritical fluid, an ion beam, an acid, or an ultraviolet light can be used to treat the fibers. Klein et al. is drawn to methods of treating ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarns and articles (abstract). Klein et al. discloses that useful treatments for UHMWPE fibers non-exclusively include corona treatment, plasma treatment, ozone treatment, acid etching, or ultraviolet (UV) light treatment which enhance the surface energy of the fiber (paragraph 39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the plasma treated fibers taught by Li et al. can also be treated with other surface modifying treatments such as UV light treatment, acid treatment, or corona treatment. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Downs et al. (2018/0022060).
The features of Li et al. . and Tam et al. have been set forth above. While Li et al. discloses that the composite can include backing layers or ceramic layers (Figure 2), Li et al. does not teach adding a layer between the aramid layer and the UHMWPE layer. Downs et al. is drawn to ballistic composite materials. Downs et al. discloses a composite with a first and second outer layer and a reinforcing layer between the outer layers. Downs et al. discloses that an internal reinforcing layer can be added between other layers or groups of layers (paragraph 16). The internal reinforcing layer are unidirectional reinforcing layer that can used to directionally reinforce the composite (paragraph 48). Further, the reinforcing layers can include different fibers such as Vectra, polyester, nylon, glass, carbon, metal or other fibers (paragraph 54). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an internal reinforcing layer made from unidirectional layers of polyester, carbon, glass, of Vectran, as taught by Downs et al. in the product of Li et al. to provide unidirectional reinforcing. Thus, claims 9 and 10 are rejected.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Tam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pritchard et al. (2008/0268733).
The features of Li et al. and Tam et al. have been set forth above. Li et al. discloses that the fabric layers are molded under heat and pressure. However, Li et al. fails to teach that the layers can be treated at temperatures between 160 and 200ºC. Pritchard et al. is drawn to composite fabric made with high strength fibers including UHMWPE (paragraph 8). Further, Pritchard et al. discloses that the fabrics are heat-treated at temperatures of 150 – 200ºC for ten minutes (paragraph 14). Thus, it would be obvious to heat set the composite fabric of Li et al. at higher temperatures to produce protective high strength fabric, as taught by Pritchard et al. Therefore, claims 12 and 21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the applicant argues that the cited references do not teach every element of the claimed product (Response, pages 8 – 9). The applicant points to Li et al. use of a matrix material mixed in with the aramid and UHMWPE layers as being distinct from the claimed invention. However, the claim does not clearly exclude matrix materials. The claim as written fails to explicitly define each layer in the composite. While the claim recites certain features are limited to consisting of language, the entire claim is described using comprising language. Thus, other components can be used in addition to the claimed features and combined with or adjacent to the claimed materials. In this case, the claim requires a first polymer material and a second polymer material that are pressed together. However, the first polymer material and the second polymer material are not directly defined as a layer. Hence, the first polymer material can be placed in a matrix, or set between additional film layers. The polymeric materials are allowed to be treated or coated with other materials. The term first polymer material can be interpreted as broadly as a fiber material or even broader as a polymer composition blended into a fiber or layer. In the present case, a matrix as taught by Li et al. can be added to the first polymer material and the second polymer material. The matrix is not part of the polymer material. And the polymer material is not expressly defined as the whole layer, or that other films or coating, which might soak into adjacent layers cannot be added to the layered structure prior to heating. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claim as written is not considered to exclude additional components like the matrix materials mixed with the fiber or woven fabric layer.
The applicant also argues that the results in Table 1 show unexpected results. First, the few samples provided in Table 1 are not considered to provide enough detail about each sample being tested to clearly show that the change in results is due to plasma treatment. Second, the table does not teach which type of plasma treatment is being used. Third, the test has not been repeated to show that the results are repeated and not just an anomaly. And while one measured value is improved it seems that the other measured value, Indentation Width, does not improve. Thus, the results are not sufficient to show that the plasma treated sample has consistently improved results over the prior art. Further, the results are not considered to be unexpected because, as set forth in the rejection above, Tam et al. discloses that oxygen plasma is preferred over other types of plasma treatments. Therefore, one would expect the plasma treated fabric to have improved testing result. Thus, the results are not considered to clearly show an improvement over the control sample and using plasma treatments to improve fiber properties is known in the art. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 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, 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.
jlj
December 16, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789