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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 5-22-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for manufacturing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-22-26.
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 6 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.
Claims 4-6 and 13 are rejected as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the exfoliated two-dimensional filler" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 and 8-12 recites the limitation " the exfoliated two-dimensional filler" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1, 7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skertchly (GB 2596050 A) in view of Martino-Gonzalez et al. (US 2019/0168480), hereinafter (“Martino”).
Re claims 1, 7, and 14, Skertchly discloses a multi-threat protective article with a multi-layered assembly (Fig 1), wherein the multi-layered assembly comprises: an external hard coating layer (2) for external protection and a negative Poisson's ratio fabric layer (1).
Skertchly does not disclose that the negative Poisson's ratio fabric layer (2) has raised strips or a sandwich structure with two faces partially unconnected, thereby forming a negative Poisson's ratio structure. Martino teaches a negative Poission ratio material having raised strips for the purpose of absorbing energy from impact(s) (p. [0014]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative Poisson layer in Skertchly to have the raised strips of Martino. The motivation (as taught by Martino) would be for absorbing the energy of impact(s). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Skertchly as modified above by Martino discloses a dense unidirectional fabric layer (inner layer 2; see also pg. 4, l. 25-35); and an inner foam layer (3) positioned closest to a user’s body for impact absorption, wherein the negative Poisson's ratio fabric layer and the dense unidirectional fabric layer are deposited between the external hard coating layer and the inner layer.
Skertchly as modified above by Martino does not specifically disclose the article wherein each layer of the multi-threat protective article has a stiffness ranging from 0.9N in the inner foam layer to 50N in the dense unidirectional fabric layer according to ASTM D4032-08, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select materials having the claimed stiffnesses, since it has been held to be within 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Claims 4-6 and 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights