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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a system, classified in B64G1/1081.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method, classified in B64G1/226.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as one where the major surfaces are bonded rather than the edges.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions would require separate search strings or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Sung Kim on August 25, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0198446 Knirsch et al.
Regarding claim 1, Knirsch teaches a system 100 (paragraph 0002), comprising:
at least one particle-absorbing core 3 (paragraph 0025) comprising an impact surface (exterior-facing surface), an exit surface (interior-facing surface) disposed opposite the impact surface (figure 2), and an absorptive media (tough fabric such as Kevlar) disposed between the impact surface and the exit surface (paragraph 0025); and
a semi-penetrable pouch 2 (paragraph 0025) comprising an impact membrane (portion of outer layer on one side) disposed on the impact surface of the particle-absorbing core and a capture membrane (portion of outer layer on opposing side) disposed on (via the foam) the exit surface of the particle-absorbing core (paragraph 0025 and figure 2), the semi-penetrable pouch configured to envelop the particle-absorbing core material (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Knirsch teaches that the semi-penetrable pouch comprises a size-tunable fabric weave configured to pass at least a debris particle through the impact membrane (paragraph 0015, where the weave allows fragments to pass through).
Regarding claim 4, Knirsch teaches that the impact membrane is further configured to at least partially fracture the debris particle (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 5, Knirsch teaches that the particle-absorbing core is configured to capture and dissipate the at least partially fractured debris particle (paragraph 0015, where “dissipate” is defined as to scatter or disperse).
Regarding claim 6, Knirsch further teaches at least one semi-penetrable inner membrane 2 (paragraph 0031 teaching multiple systems adjacently tied together, and paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 7, Knirsch teaches a second particle-absorbing core 3 (paragraph 0031 teaching multiple systems adjacently tied together, and paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 8, Knirsch teaches that the at least one semi-penetrable inner membrane is disposed between the at least one particle-absorbing core and the second particle-absorbing core (paragraph 0031, when a first system and second system are adjacent to one another such that both the inner membrane of the second system and a portion of the semi-permeable pouch of the first system are located between first and second particle-absorbing cores).
Regarding claim 9, Knirsch further teaches a third absorbing core 3 and a second semi-penetrable inner membrane 2 (paragraph 0031 teaching multiple systems adjacently tied together, and paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Knirsch teaches that the second semi-penetrable inner membrane is disposed between the second particle-absorbing core and the third particle absorbing core (paragraph 0031, when a first, second and third systems are arranged linearly and adjacent to one another such that both the inner membrane of the second system and the inner membrane of the third system are located between second and third particle-absorbing cores).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Knirsch teaches that the first and second semi-penetrable inner membranes 2 are configured to at least partially block the at least partially fractured debris particle (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Knirsch teaches that the second and third absorbing cores 3 are configured to capture and dissipate the at least partially fractured debris particle (paragraph 0025).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0198446 Knirsch et al in view of Study on shielding performance of aerogel/fiberglass composite stuffed shield (hereinafter “Study”) further in view of Aerogels: Thinner, Lighter, Stronger (hereinafter “Aerogels”).
Regarding claim 2, Knirsch teaches the particle-absorbing core (paragraph 0025), but teaches a Kevlar-type material rather than a hybrid polymer aerogel. Study teaches a stuffed shield using aerogel/fiberglass composites as the stuffing material (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the Kevlar-type material of Knirsch with the aerogel/fiberglass composite of Study because this material exhibits improved performance relative to conventional aluminum shields (abstract).
Knirsch in view of Study teaches that the particle-absorbing core comprises an aerogel material. Neither Knirsch nor Study teaches the use of polymer aerogel materials. Aerogels teaches that aerogel material provides excellent insulation and that a hybrid aerogel material that is reinforced by polymers provides an even stronger material (Aerogel Innovations section, pages 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a polymer reinforcement of Aerogels in the aerogel/fiberglass composite of Study because this reinforced material greatly strengthens the aerogel by two magnitudes (Aerogel Innovations section, pages 5-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights