DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 2 are previously canceled.
Claims 3-6 are currently amended.
Claims 3-6 are remaining in the application.
The previously filed Drawings are accepted, unless otherwise noted.
The amended Specification is accepted, unless otherwise noted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The Specification does not define that which constitutes Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Material (UHMWPE). Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 3-6 recite a “ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene material” which is not found nor described in the Specification as filed. Clam limitations should be consistent with features found in and described in the Specification. In addition, terminology and/or nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure (Abstract, Specification & Claims). The Specification discloses Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Material (UHMWPE), not ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene material. This disclosure not considered the same as that recited in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The term “ultrahigh” in claims 3-6 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “ultrahigh” is not defined by the claims, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claimed feature “ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene material” is rendered indefinite by the relative term “ultrahigh”.
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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: US 2018/0058820 A1 (Kwiatkowski et al.), cited by the examiner, in view of D4: US 2016/0320162 A1, also cited by the examiner. Regarding claim 3, D3 discloses a multi-layered boat hull including layered materials to enhance blast protection. Specifically, D3 discloses a boat hull [10] with an upper hull portion [12] and a lower hull portion [14]; and also discloses that both portions can be monolithic (uniform) and can include layers of blast protection integral with the hull. D3 does not explicitly disclose that the hull is formed with ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. oweveHHowever, D4 discloses barriers that can be used to coat a ship hull that creates an armored panel for ballistic protection that includes ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Regarding claims 4-6, D4 also discloses that such a coating can include boron carbide, silicon carbide and/or alumina ceramic, as well as other known materials in various combinations as desired for effective ballistic protection. Therefore, providing such features as known and desired would expectedly facilitate blast and/or ballistic protection of a boat hull, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered 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 to provide such features and/or materials as known and desired to improve the ballistic protection for a boat hull with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been fully considered but are essentially moot due to applicant’s amended claims, and the resulting new and/or modified grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action (OA). Nevertheless, the following additional comments are provided for applicant’s consideration for reply to this OA:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, D4 discloses barriers that can be used to coat a ship hull that creates an armored panel for ballistic protection that includes ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and also discloses that such a coating can include boron carbide, silicon carbide and/or alumina ceramic for effective ballistic protection. D3 discloses a boat hull that can include layers of blast protection integral with the hull. Therefore, providing such features would expectedly facilitate and/or improve the blast/ballistic protection of a boat hull, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art features cannot be combined, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejection is considered valid and is not withdrawn.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Q Jimenez, who can be reached at phone number (571) 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
17. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3617
02/24/2026