DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-29 and 38-40 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.
Claim 21 is drawn to a method of forming a “single-layer fabric” comprising applying a first component (glass microballoon layer – claim 25) to a metallized component (metallized fabric layer – claim 24) which the specification describes and illustrates as a multi-layer structure (Figure 2). The specification fails to provide written description support for forming a single-layer fabric comprising the claimed steps. Same applies to claim 38 which requires “a single-layer construction.”
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 21-40 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 21 is drawn to a method of forming a “single-layer fabric” comprising applying a first component (glass microballoon layer – claim 25) to a metallized component (metallized fabric layer – claim 24) which the specification describes and illustrates as a multi-layer structure (Figure 2). It is unclear how the claim is drawn to a method of making a single-layer fabric that comprises more than one layer. Same applies to claim 38 which requires “a single-layer construction.”
Claims 21, 30 and 38 each recite multiple subjects such that it is unclear if the subjects in each claim are the same subject or a different subject. For example, claim 1 states that the metallized component is configured to at least partially block a thermal infrared radiation of a subject and to blend a background thermal infrared radiation by partial scattering and partial specular reflecting of a subject thermal infrared radiation, and cutting and sewing the fabric so as to form a cover over at least a portion of a subject to blend into the environment. Same applies to the “subject” of claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over USPN 4,663,231 to Girgis in view of USPN 3,733,606 to Johansson and USPAP 2010/0112316 to Cincotti and further in view of (when necessary) USPN 4,493,863 to Karisson.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 30, 34-36 and 38, Girgis discloses a single-layer fabric tarp wherein the fabric comprises woven bundles of fibers and wherein the fabric is sandwiched between laminate (e.g. vinyl) sheets (see entire document including column 1, lines 7-61, column 3, lines 27-35, column 12, lines 29-51, column 13, lines 39-49 and Figure 1). The examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to cut and sew a fabric into a desired shape for the intended use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the tarp of Girgis by cutting and sewing, to provide the tarp with the desired/required shape.
Girgis does not appear to mention forming the fabric with metallized fibers but Johansson discloses that it is known in the tarp art to use metallized fibers to minimize detection of objects by radar (see entire document including column 1, lines 5-20, column 2, lines 3-22, and the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the tarp of Girgis with metallized fibers to construct a camouflage tarp that minimizes detection of objects by radar.
Girgis does not appear to mention applying a plurality of microballoons on the fabric of Girgis but Cincotti discloses that it is known in the art to construct a camouflage tarp by applying a plurality of microballoons to a fabric to provide thermal and/or radar suppression and an upper camouflage print layer to provide visual camouflage (see entire document including [0005], [0008], [0036]-[0040] and [0047]-[0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the tarp of Girgis with the claimed microballoons and pigmentation material to provide a camouflage tarp with thermal and/or radar suppression and visual camouflage.
Regarding the claimed properties, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical method and product, the claimed properties appear to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 22, 31 and 39, Cincotti discloses that applying the pigmentation material configures the fabric to adapt the emissivity at visual wavelengths to mimic ambient properties of an environment based on deformation of the fabric ([0036]-[0040], [0048] and [0068]).
Claims 23 and 40, the pigmentation material may comprise a single color pigmentation ([0028] and [0110]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pigmentation from any suitable color(s), such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a pattern/color on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 26 and 32, Girgis does not appear to mention the tarp including perforations but Karisson discloses that it is known in the tarp art to cut a plurality of perforations through a camouflage fabric to provide partial ventilation to reduce heat generated by a subject (see entire document including columns 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the tarp of Girgis with the claimed perforations to provide partial ventilation to reduce heat generated by a subject.
Claims 27 and 33, Karisson discloses that cutting the plurality of perforations includes forming a non-uniform pattern of perforation of multiple different sizes and shapes (Figure 6 and the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4).
Claim 28, Cincotti discloses that applying the pigmentation material includes matching a pigmentation to ambient colors and conditions of an environment ([0036]-[0040] and [0048]).
Claim 29, Cincotti discloses applying low-emissivity pigments to the at least a portion of the surface [0068]. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pigmentation with any suitable color and/or property, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a pattern/color/property on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 37, Cincotti teaches that applying the pigmentation material includes applying a water-repellant coating using a nano-process at least because the pigmentation pattern is printed on a vinyl layer which is inherently water-repellant and the pigmentation material and/or the vinyl may include nanomaterial ([0037] and [0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights