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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 65 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “stacked” is misspelled in line 2 of the claim. 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.
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 8, 10-11, 13-14 and 63 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.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the solid particles have a density of between about 1.0 g/cm3 and about 5.0 g/cm3 OR between about 1.5 g/cm3 and about 4.5 g/cm3 OR between 2.0 g/cm3 and about 4.0 g/cm3. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the solid particles have a density of between about 1.0 g/cm3 and about 5.0 g/cm3.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if hollow particles have a density of between about 0.55 g/cm³ and about 0.95 g/cm³, between about 0.60 g/cm³ and about 0.90 g/cm³, or between about 0.65 g/cm³ and about 0.85 g/cm³. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to hollow particles have a density of between about 0.55 g/cm³ and about 0.95 g/cm³.
Claim 11 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the nominal diameter of the particles is between about 1 µm and about 500 µm, between about 1 µm and 250 µm, between about 1 µm and 100 µm, between about 0.1 µm and about 50 µm, about 0.1 µm and about 10 µm, or between about 0.1 µm and 1 µm. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the nominal diameter of the particles is between about 1 µm and about 500 µm.
Claim 13 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the polymeric binder is present in an amount of between 1 wt% and 15 wt%, between about 2 wt% and about 6 wt%, or between about 3 wt% and about 5 wt%; For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the polymeric binder being present in an amount of between 1 wt% and 15 wt%.
Claim 13 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the particles are present in an amount between about 20 wt% and about 65 wt%, between about 25 wt% and about 55 wt%, or between about 30 wt% and about 45 wt%. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the particles a being present in an amount between about 20 wt% and about 65 wt%.
Claim 13 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the deflocculant is present in an amount of between about 0 wt% and about 7 wt%, between about 2 wt% and about 6 wt%, or between about 3 wt% and about 5 wt%. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the deflocculant being present in an amount of between about 0 wt% and about 7 wt%.
Claim 13 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the water is present in an amount of between about 10 wt% and about 65 wt%, between about 15 wt% and about 60wt%, or between about 20 wt% and about 55 wt%. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the water being present in an amount of between about 10 wt% and about 65 wt%.
Claim 14 is rendered indefinite because claim 14 is dependent upon claim 13 which is indefinite.
Regarding claim 63, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the substrate being made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide, aramid, or any combination thereof.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 60-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenzweig et al., WO 2009/060447, as evidenced by True Geometry, What is the typical hardness of Silicon Carbide ceramics.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 11, 60, Rosenzweig discloses a multi-layer ballistic barrier including at least one layer of abrasive particles embedded in a binder [abstract and page 2, paragraph 2]. Page 3, paragraph 6 discloses that the particle can include silicon carbide, boron carbide or alumina wherein the particles have a particle size ranging from 500 to 2000 microns [0.5 mm to 2 mm]. True Geometry provides evidence that silicon carbide has a hardness ranging from 22-30 GPa.
Regarding claims 2-3, it is disclosed on page 3, paragraph 3 that the binder resin can include polyetherimide. Polyetherimide is non-elastic.
Regarding claim 61, Figure 1 shows particles 32, 34 and 36 having a spherical shape.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being by anticipated by Sanner et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0371169.
Regarding claim 15, Sanner discloses a polyetherimide composition [0003]. Paragraph 0049 discloses that the polyetherimide can have a molecular weight ranging between 1,000 to 150,000 g/mol. It is disclosed in paragraph 0076 of Sanner that a filler can be present such as boron carbide having a particle size of less than or equal to 100 nanometers. Paragraph 0077 discloses that the composition can include sodium sulfo-silicate. Applicant’s claim recites “a sodium silicate”. Sodium sulfo-silicate is a sodium silicate.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being by anticipated by Rhee et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2019/0051906, as evidenced by Azo Materials, Alumina.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 12, Rhee discloses alumina powder, a binder resin mixed with a solvent [0076]. Paragraph 0078 discloses that the binder resin can include polyetherimide. Paragraph 0021 discloses that the diameter of the alumina powder can be 20 µm. Azo Materials provides evidence of the alumina having a hardness of 22050 MPa [22.05 GPa].
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being by anticipated by Amos et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0051162, as evidenced by Azo Materials, Alumina.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11 Amos discloses discrete, hollow ceramic spheroid formed from α-alumina [0035] having a density of 0.6 g/cc [0066]. Paragraph 0055 discloses that the hollow, ceramic spheroids are dispersed in a fluoropolymer. Paragraph 0030 discloses a particle size of the spheroid in the range of 0.1 micrometer to 1 mm. Azo Materials provides evidence of the alumina having a hardness of 22050 MPa [22.05 GPa].
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., CN100506743, as evidenced by Azo Material Titania.
Regarding claims 1-2 ,4 , 7-9, 11-12, Example 4 discloses a suspension slurry comprising a ceramic powder material, TiO2 mixed with a polystyrene binder and purified water [0060]. Table 5 shows that the ceramic particle has a density of 1.84 g./cm3. Paragraph 0034 discloses that powder can have a solid or hollow particle shape. Azo provides evidence that TiO2 has a hardness of 10290 MPa [10.290 GPa]. Example 4 also discloses that the ceramic powder material has a particle size ranging from 1 to 10 microns.
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.
Claims 62-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rosenzweig et al., WO 2009/060447, as evidenced by True Geometry, What is the typical hardness of Silicon Carbide ceramics.
Rosenzweig et al., WO 2009/060447, as evidenced by True Geometry, What is the typical hardness of Silicon Carbide ceramics, above, remains relied upon for claim 1.
Regarding claims 62-64, Rosenzweig teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach a helmet. It is reasonable to presume that the structure of Rosenzweig is a helmet is inherent to Rosenzweig. Said presumption is based on Rosenzweig disclosure of at least one layer of abrasive particles embedded in a binder and at least one layer of ballistic protective fibers [Page 2, paragraph 2]. Page 3, paragraph 4 discloses that the fibers are UHMWPE [ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene]. Examiner is corresponding the layer of fibers as Applicant’s substrate. Rosenzweig discloses a multi-layer ballistic barrier including at least one layer of abrasive particles embedded in a binder [abstract and page 2, paragraph 2]. Page 3, paragraph 6 discloses that the particle can include silicon carbide, boron carbide or alumina wherein the particles have a particle size ranging from 500 to 2000 microns [0.5 mm to 2 mm]. True Geometry provides evidence that silicon carbide has a hardness ranging from 22-30 GPa. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, Rosenzweig discloses the same structure as Applicant’s claimed helmet.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rosenzweig et al., WO 2009/060447, as evidenced by True Geometry, What is the typical hardness of Silicon Carbide ceramics, in view of Bhatnagar et al., CN102933758.
Rosenzweig et al., WO 2009/060447, as evidenced by True Geometry, What is the typical hardness of Silicon Carbide ceramics, above, remains relied upon for claim 1.
Regarding claim 65, Rosenzweig is silent to wherein the single ply UHMWPE ply is a layer with two, three, four or more unidirectional plies stacked orthogonally. Rosenzweig discloses a multi-layer ballistic barrier including at least one layer of abrasive particles embedded in a binder [abstract and page 2, paragraph 2]. Page 3, paragraph 6 discloses that the particle can include silicon carbide, boron carbide or alumina wherein the particles have a particle size ranging from 500 to 2000 microns [0.5 mm to 2 mm]. Bhatnagar discloses a ballistics material that has improved strength [abstract and 0002] Paragraph 0003 discloses a helmet [see also 0061-0063]. Paragraph 0046 discloses the structure of the helmet a plurality of stacked single ply layers with the parallel fibers of each ply are orthogonal to the parallel fibers of each adjacent ply [0 degrees/90 degrees]. Paragraph 0040 discloses a coating formed on the surface of the fiber layers where in the coating includes a polymer adhesive material in a suspension of particles. Rosenzweig and Bhatnagar are analogous art in that both references discloses a multi-layered ballistic article including a coating of particles suspended in a polymeric material. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the ballistic structure in Bhatanagar for the ballistics structure of Rosenzweig for enhanced strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights