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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation “wherein the fourth layer comprises a urethane skin layer configured, together with the first, second, and third layers, to provide the stealth material composition with: (a) a reflectance between about 20% and about 80% in a wavelength range of 700 nanometers to 24 micrometers, and (b) a transmission between about 25% and about 50% and an emissivity between about 25% and 50% in the wavelength range of 700 nanometers to 24 nanometers”. Specifically, it does not disclose that the layers together are configured to provide the claimed values of reflectance and transmission. It further does not disclose “about” values. Also, it does not disclose a reflectance between 20-80% in a range of 700 nanometers to 24 micrometers, but 700-2400 nanometers.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear how the layers are configured to provide the particular reflectance and transmission or how the layers differ from the same layers which were not so configured.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4,5,6-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,037,280 in view of CN 111864400 , Karlsson, U.S. Patent No. 4,557,965 and Child et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0051082.
Edwards discloses a fabric. The fabric may be a spunbond fabric. See col. 4, line 9. Suitable fibers include nylons, polyesters, acrylics and polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene. See col. 4, lines 1-6. The fabric may be printed with a composition which is a mixture of a binder and graphite particles. See col. 2, lines 52-55; col. 4, line 38. The particles impart a property of deflecting, absorbing, reflecting and/or scattering ultraviolet radiation. See abstract. The composition of binder and graphite particles is equated with the claimed conductive ink. The composition can be applied by printing. See col. 2, lines 59-66. The fabric can be used in a variety of articles including clothing, awning, tents, tarps , military uniforms and camouflage materials. See col. 3, lines 40-55.The conductive particles can also be incorporated into the polymer melt before spinning. See col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 1. Edwards can further comprise aluminum particles or flakes. See col. 2, lines 34-45.
Edwards differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the fabric further comprises a third aluminum coating layer or the particularly claimed Faraday cage pattern.
However, CN 111864400 teaches a camouflage material comprising a printed conductive layer having a Faraday cage structure wherein the apertures have a periodic separation distance of 1mm. See figures 2 and 3. CN 111864400 teaches that selecting the size and shape of the periodic array, the frequency band width and transmittance of electromagnetic waves are effectively controlled. See English abstract at page 1 of the supplied document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure of Edwards and to have selected the size and shape, (regular or irregular), of the apertures and the spacing of the apertures so that they effectively controlled the band width and transmittance of electromagnetic waves.
With regard to the aluminum coating layer, However, Karlsson teaches a camouflage material having a metal layer such as an aluminum layer plated on side in order to provide reflection of radar wavelengths. See abstract, col. 1, lines 22-30, col. 2, lines 16-20. The aluminum covers the layer and thus meets the limitations of claim 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an aluminum layer as taught by Karlsson in order to provide reflection of radar wavelengths.
Edwards does not teach the claimed fourth layer or the claimed metal oxides.
However, Child discloses a textile having a coating printed thereon by screen printing or other methods. See abstract. The fabric may be a nonwoven fabric. See paragraph 0009. The fabric may be made from spun fibers. See paragraph 0023. The fabric can comprise various know polymeric fibers including polyester, polyamides, and polyolefins, as well as natural fibers such as wool, cotton, flax and blends thereof. See paragraph 0022. The fabric can comprise bicomponent fibers including microdenier fibers. See paragraph 0023. The fabric can be screen printed with a pattern of intersecting lines which form a faraday cage and the conductive printing ink can comprise metal oxides. See paragraphs 0025, 0027 and 0033. After screen printing, the fabric may receive additional treatments and coatings or may have a polymer film layer or a urethane foam layer laminated onto it. See paragraphs 0039 and 0040.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided additional layers to provide wear resistance and other properties to the fabric as taught by Child at paragraphs 0039 and 0040 and to have used known conductive metal oxides to provide the conductive particles in the conductive printing ink as taught by Child at paragraph 0027.
Claim(s) 3, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,037,280 in view of CN 111864400, Karlsson, U.S. Patent No. 4,557,965 and Child as applied to claims above, and further in view of Morag et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0017785.
Edwards discloses a fabric as set forth above.
Edwards does not teach the particularly claimed fabric structure.
However, Morag discloses a fabric having camouflage properties. See paragraph 0002. The fabric can be woven, nonwoven or knitted. See paragraph 0067. The fabric can be woven to have particular sizes of apertures to provide ventilation which corresponds to the claimed mesh layer. See paragraph 0069. Any mesh with apertures will have some degree of transparency. The fabrics can have a basis weight of 15-1200 gsm which encompasses the claimed basis weights. The fabric can comprise polyester multifilament yarns. See paragraph 0068. The fabric can have 20-700 yarns per square inch which meets the claimed range. See paragraph 0067. The yarns can have a size of 10-10,000 dtex which encompasses the claimed values. See paragraph 0066. The fabric can have a thickness of 0.1-10 mm, which is within the claimed range. See paragraph 0067.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a fabric as taught by Morag as the underlying base fabric in Edwards, in view of its art recognized suitability for the purpose of making protective fabrics.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,037,280 in view of CN 111864400, Karlsson, U.S. Patent No. 4,557,965 Child et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0051082 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Arpin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0306257.
Child teaches providing additional polymeric film layers to a camouflage material but does not teach the claimed additives.
However, Arpin teaches incorporating fillers including boron nitride and barium sulfate into polymeric resin layers which will be subjected to long term outdoor exposure. See paragraph 0050.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated known fillers such as those taught by Arpin into the layer of Child in view of its art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Edwards does not disclose the numerical reflectance, transmission or emissivity values or the spectral range and does not teach configuring the multiple layers. However, Edwards is not relied on for teaching the numerical values, but rather for the fabric structure including the particular conductive ink while CN ‘400 is relied on for a teaching of how the the size and shape of the periodic array can be selected to provide the frequency band width and transmittance of electromagnetic waves to be controlled. Therefore, CN ‘400 teaches that the size and shape of the faraday cage is a result effective variable which can be sized and shaped to provide different properties to the structure. See English abstract at page 1 of the supplied document. Further, CN ‘400 appears to each values which are within the claimed range and therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the combination of references would provide a structure having the claimed values.
Applicant argues that the claimed values are the result of deliberate design choice and cooperative interactions between layers. However, the combination of references provides each of the elements of the layers as claimed and therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the same combination of layers and components would produce the same cooperative interaction between layers.
Applicant argues that Child does not focus on optical/thermal spectral tuning. However, Child is relied on for teaching providing the protective urethane layer as well as for particular metal oxides which were also known in the art to be useful for forming printed faraday cages on fabrics.
With regard to Arpin, Applicant argues that Arpin does not relate to spectral control but to mechanical and weather durability. However, the teachings of Arpin of providing the claimed fillers to provide durability to outdoor materials would have been relevant to Edwards, since the material of Edwards was intended for use outside.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 112 rejection previously set forth.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/17/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,796 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789