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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Biberger reference (US 8,545,652) does not teach or fairly suggest the step of preheating at least two component bodies at a particular temperature. This is not found persuasive because such a step is not shared by the various groups. While a preheating step is mentioned in claim 9, it is not required in the claim. More specifically, claim 9 is a product-by-process claim which is limited by the structure of the resulting product rather than the steps of the method. As such, the product of claim 9 does not share the specific method steps recited in claim 1. Claim 15 recites a method of using such a product and does not positively recite any preheating step as argued by Applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “materials selected from fibre materials comprising carbon fibre, aramid fibres, metallic or non-metallic inorganic fibres or ceramic materials comprising alumina, boron or silicon carbide, or metallic materials comprising such as aluminium, brass, lead, steel, or plastic materials.” This recitation includes an improper Markush group which does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from a group “comprising” recited alternatives), the claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. In this case, Applicant states that materials are selected from various groups but leaves the groups as open alternatives by using the term “comprising” (See MPEP 2173.05(h)).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" in lines 16 and 18 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, such limitations are considered to be positively recited and part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the reduction” and “the surface viscosity” in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the claims have been construed as reciting “to reducea surface viscosity of said adhesive.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the viscous state” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claims has been construed as reciting “said adhesive having the reduced surface viscosity” for consistency with earlier limitations.
Claim 1 recites “the bond” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 24 also recites “hardening the polymer and complete activation,” which is grammatically incorrect and unclear. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “hardening the polymer and ing [[of]] said adhesive with said polymer”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein said at least two bodies are in the form of hexagonal prisms in ceramic material.” Use of the phrase “in ceramic material” renders the claim unclear as to whether the two bodies are themselves formed of ceramic material or are contained within ceramic material. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “wherein said at least two bodies are in the form of hexagonal prisms [[in]] of ceramic material.”
Claim 4 recites “a gap” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is a new gap or the same gap recited in claim 1. It appears that the gap present between hexagonal prisms in claim 4 is the same as the “free intermediate gap” recited in claim 1. Since such a gap is already positively recited in claim 1 between adjacent component bodies, it is redundant to recite such a gap in claim 4, and the limitation is not considered to further limit the gap of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a gap” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is a new gap or the same gap recited in claim 1. It appears that the gap present between at least two bodies in claim 6 is the same as the “free intermediate gap” recited in claim 1. Since such a gap is already positively recited in claim 1 between adjacent component bodies, it is redundant to recite such a gap in claim 6, and the limitation is not considered to further limit the gap of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites a step of “filling said gap and creating an intermediate binder layer between adjacent bodies.” This is unclear because the intermediate binder layer appears to be the same as the intermediate layer of polymer which is formed in the coupling step of claim 1. The repetition of the layer creation step while using different terminology is unclear and renders the claim scope indefinite.
For examination purposes, claim 6 has been construed as reciting “to ethe of polymer between the at least two adjacent bodies.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art reference is Biberger (US 8,545,652). The Biberger reference teaches a method of producing a composite resistant material, the method comprising: preparing a tile (510) of ceramic or metal, preparing a fibrous backing material (520), placing the tile and backing material adjacent to one another separated by an interior volume (530), coating interior surfaces of the tile and the backing material with heat-curable adhering material (515,525), coupling the tile and the backing material by inserting within the interior volume a catalyzed foamable exothermic material which expands and generates heat, wherein the exothermic material hardens into a solid foam body (535) which fills the interior volume, and wherein the heat generated by the foamable exothermic material cures the heat-curable adhering material and forms a bond between the tile and the backing material (See Figs. 5A and 5B; col. 10, line 33 to col. 12, line 11). The tile and backing material read on the instantly claimed at least two component bodies and are made of the requisite materials. The interior volume, heat-curable adhering material, and catalyzed foamable exothermic material read on the instantly claimed free intermediate gap, adhesive, and intermediate layer of polymer compatible with said adhesive, respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the catalyzed foamable exothermic material of Biberger to encompass two-component thermosetting polymers, such as polyurethane. Darley (US 2018/0319139) and Sayre (US 2010/0043630) are exemplary references which teach two-component thermosetting polymers useful in ballistic armor laminates.
Other steps in the method are well-known and ubiquitous in the prior art, such as cleaning and drying, which are commonly performed to remove contaminants and moisture to predictably improve adhesion.
As of the date of this Office action, the Examiner has not identified any reference or combination of references which teach or fairly suggest every limitation of the instantly claimed method. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a method as claimed which includes a step of pre-heating the component bodies after coating with the adhesive and drying in order to reduce the viscosity of the adhesive prior to coupling. It is known in the art that heating can affect the viscosity of fluid coatings. Darley, for example, teaches heating coating materials to reduce their viscosity and predictably improve processability and application characteristics (See [0062]; [0092]). However the teachings of Darley suggest heating a fluid prior to application to facilitate a coating step. This is different from the instant claims, which coat the tile and the backing material with the adhesive, subsequently dry the adhesive, and then pre-heat the component bodies themselves in order to reduce viscosity of the adhesive in preparation for introduction of the two-component thermosetting polymer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant references which teach at least some aspect(s) of the instantly claimed invention include Gendlin (US 2013/0199712), Zachau (US 2012/0096703), and Sato (US 6,296,799).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746