DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are active.
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/14/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 7-9, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, “mechanical” in line 2 should say “mechanism”.
Regarding claim 7, a colon (“:”) should be inserted after “comprising” in line 1 in order to differentiate the preamble of the claim from the body.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/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.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, clarification is required regarding the limitation “other metal having structural support for the first layer” in lines 3-4. Specifically, it is unclear what other metals qualify as “having structural support for the first layer”, as claimed, since no such examples are provided in applicant’s disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear whether “structural support” is intended to be a structural limitation or a functional one.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (US 2024/0263479), herein ‘Perez’.
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, and 14, Perez discloses a ballistic panel (100), comprising:
a ballistic material (102, 108; par. 26, 30); and
a fastening mechanism (202, 204) adapted to dispose the ballistic material with standoff (302; par. 35) over a surface (Figs. 1-3) of an asset (106, 206).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, Perez discloses wherein the fastening mechanism includes:
a rail (204) coupled to the asset (Figs. 2-3; par. 34-35);
a standoff coupled to the rail (Figs. 2-3; par. 34-35; the standoff being the horizontal frame members 202 which extend away from energy transmission equipment 106); and
a bracket coupled between the standoff and the ballistic material (Figs. 2-3; par. 34-35; the bracket being the horizontal and/or vertical frame members 202 which extend parallel to the outer surface of energy transmission equipment 106).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Perez discloses wherein the asset includes a power transformer or other electric equipment (106; par. 21).
Regarding claim 20, Perez discloses overlapping a plurality of the ballistic panels over the surface of the asset (Figs. 1 and 4; par. 26, 30).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5, 10-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2024/0263479) as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, respectively, and further in view of Leber (US 10840677), herein ‘Leber’.
Regarding claims 3-5, 10-12, and 16-18, Perez discloses wherein the ballistic material can be manufactured from any suitable material, such as non-woven aramid, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, or other composites in one embodiment (par. 26, 45), or a non-woven composite or metal material in another embodiment (par. 45), but does not expressly teach wherein the ballistic material includes a first layer bonded to a second layer, wherein the first layer includes a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, aramid fiber, ballistic fabric, adhesives, ceramics, and aluminum oxide, and wherein the second layer includes a material selected from the group consisting of steel, galvanized steel, iron, and aluminum.
Leber teaches a ballistic panel (4) comprising a ballistic material (7) and a fastening mechanism (5) adapted to dispose the ballistic material over a surface of a transformer (1), wherein the ballistic material may be a multilayered panel made of a composite of a metal material and a synthetic material (col. 3 lines 46-47; col. 7 lines 27-29), where the synthetic material may be aramid fiber or polyethylene (col. 7 lines 33-36) and the metal material may be steel (col. 7 lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ballistic material of Perez to comprise a first layer of polyethylene or aramid fiber and a second layer of steel as taught by Leber with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Troy Chambers can be reached at (571)272-6874. 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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641