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 .
Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed April 30, 2026 are acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 60 and 63.
Examiner acknowledges cancelled claims 6, 13 and 16-59.
The objection to claim 65 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s argument.
The rejection of claims 8, 10-11, 13-14 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 11 and 60-61 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 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhee et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2019/0051906, as evidenced by Azo Materials, Alumina is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 and 61 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 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., CN100506743, as evidenced by Azo Material Titania is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 62-64 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 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 65 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 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-5, 11-12, 14-15 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sanner et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0371169, as evidenced by Wikipedia, Boron carbide.
Regarding claims 1-5, 11, 14 and 60, Sanner discloses a polyetherimide composition including 1 to 99 wt% of polyetherimide [0004][non-elastomeric polymer binder]; a filler such as alumina or boron carbide present in the amount of 20 to 35 wt% wherein the diameter of the filler ranges from less than or equal to 100 nm; 0.1 to 10 wt% of sodium silicate [0077][deflocculant]; and a solvent such as water [0050]. Sanner also discloses in paragraph 0022 discloses that the residual solvent can be present in the amount of greater than 10,000 ppm, which encompasses Applicant’s claimed range. Paragraph 0039 of Applicant’s published specification discloses a sodium silicate as a deflocculant. Sodium sulfo-silicate is a sodium silicate. Wikipedia, Boron Carbide provides evidence that boron carbide has a hardness of greater than 30 GPa. Applicant’s claims include open language and does not exclude other material from being present.
Regarding claim 12, paragraph 0059 discloses that the composition can include a water soluble organic solvent such as acetone, methanol or ethanol.
Regarding claim 15, paragraph 0049 discloses that the polyetherimide can have a weight average molecular weight of 1,000 to 150,000 grams/mole.
Claims 7-10 and 61 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant claims a coating material as recited in claim 1, further including wherein at least some of the particles are solid as recited in claim 7. Applicant claims a coating material as recited in claim 1, further including wherein the solid particles have a density of between 1.0 g/cm3 and about 5.0 g/cm3 as recited in claim 8. Applicant claims a coating material as recited in claim 1, further including wherein at least some of particles are hollow as recited in claim 8. Applicant claims a coating material as recited in claim 1, further including wherein the hollow particles have a density of between 0.55 g/cm3 and about 0.95 g/cm3 as recited in claim 10. Applicant claims a coating material as recited in claim 1, further including wherein the particles are substantially the same spheric shape as recited in claim 61. The closest prior art, Sanner et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0371169, teaches a polyetherimide composition including 1 to 99 wt% of polyetherimide [0004][non-elastomeric polymer binder]; a filler such as alumina or boron carbide present in the amount of 20 to 35 wt% wherein the diameter of the filler ranges from less than or equal to 100 nm; 0.1 to 10 wt% of sodium silicate [0077][deflocculant]; and a solvent such as water [0050]. Sanner also discloses in paragraph 0022 discloses that the residual solvent can be present in the amount of greater than 10,000 ppm, which encompasses Applicant’s claimed range. Paragraph 0039 of Applicant’s published specification discloses a sodium silicate as a deflocculant. Sodium sulfo-silicate is a sodium silicate. Wikipedia, Boron Carbide provides evidence that boron carbide has a hardness of greater than 30 GPa. Sanner fails to teach or suggest the limitations as presented in claims 7-10 and 61.
Claims 62-65 are allowed. The closest prior art, Sanner et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0371169, teaches a polyetherimide composition including 1 to 99 wt% of polyetherimide [0004][non-elastomeric polymer binder]; a filler such as alumina or boron carbide present in the amount of 20 to 35 wt% wherein the diameter of the filler ranges from less than or equal to 100 nm; 0.1 to 10 wt% of sodium silicate [0077][deflocculant]; and a solvent such as water [0050]. Sanner also discloses in paragraph 0022 discloses that the residual solvent can be present in the amount of greater than 10,000 ppm, which encompasses Applicant’s claimed range. Paragraph 0039 of Applicant’s published specification discloses a sodium silicate as a deflocculant. Sodium sulfo-silicate is a sodium silicate. Wikipedia, Boron Carbide provides evidence that boron carbide has a hardness of greater than 30 GPa. Sanner fails to teach or suggest a helmet comprising a composite material for ballistic protection, the composite material comprising a substrate having a surface; and at least one layer of coating material comprising a polymer binder in an amount of between about 1 wt% and about 15 wt%; [[and]] particles having a hardness of at least 10 GPa and mixed with the polymer binder in an amount of between about 20 wt% and about 65 wt%: deflocculant in an amount of between about 0 wt% and about 7 wt%; and water in an amount of between about 10 wt% and about 65 wt%, wherein the particles have a nominal diameter less than 1 millimeter and are suspended in the coating material prior to application to a surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claims and Sanner et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2018/0371169 now reads on the presently amended claims.
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.
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