Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to claims received on December 16th 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 5 and 12 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.
In both claims, the term “the peripheral edge of the first subpanel” lacks a basis for antecedence, and it is unclear what the Applicant considers to be “the peripheral edge” considering that it appears to be distinct from the perimeter edge. Further amendment is required for compliance with this section.
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2019/0375202 (hereinafter referred to as “DUPONT” or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, Dupont teaches a soft body armor assembly1, comprising: a first subpanel comprising, a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising a first plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the first plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another, and the second portion comprising a second plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the second plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another; and a second subpanel comprising a third portion and a fourth portion, the third portion comprising a third plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the second plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another, and the fourth portion comprising composite sheets (the reference teaches “a plurality of sheets, preferably two or four”2 and that “each sheet is stacked one on top of the other”3, wherein the sheets are made of UHMWPE non-filamentary sheets4 that are cross plied at 90 degrees to each other5).
Regarding claim 2, Dupont teaches that an aramid multi-layer woven fabric is disposed between the first portion and the second portion (see Examples 19 and 20 discussed in paras. [0074] and [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Dupont teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion are sewn together6.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dupont teaches that the third portion is sewn to the first subpanel and the fourth portion is sewn to the first subpanel and the third portion6.
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0375202 (hereinafter referred to as “DUPONT”) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of WO 2020165212 (hereinafter referred to as “TEIJIN ARAMID”).
Regarding claim 4, Dupont teaches that the first and section portions of the armor are sewn together, but fails to explicitly teach that the portions are sewn together about a perimeter of the first subpanel.
Teijin Aramid discloses a ballistic resistant article based on sheets, similar to that of Dupont, whereby the sheets are sewn together about a perimeter of a first subpanel7.
Based on the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching taught by Dupont to conform to a peripheral placement, similar to the manner taught by Teijin Aramid, since stitching two sheets of a material together along a peripheral edge would be obvious to try.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0013495 (hereinafter referred to as “AQUINO”) further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0375202 (hereinafter referred to as “DUPONT”).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 13-14, Aquino teaches a ballistic vest (see abstract), comprising: a front plate pocket defined between an inner layer and an outer layer and defining a volume to house a frame and a soft body armor assembly8; the frame being disposed separate from and adjacent the soft body armor assembly9.
Where Aquino fails to fully anticipate the claim is with respect to the soft body armor assembly definition. Aquino fails to explicitly teach a first subpanel comprising, a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising a first plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the first plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another, the second portion comprising a second plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the second plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another, and a second subpanel comprising a third portion and a fourth portion, the third portion comprising a third plurality of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber sheets, wherein each sheet of the second plurality comprises two single layers of unidirectional sheets cross plied at 90 degrees to one another, and the fourth portion comprising composite sheets.
As discussed in claim 1 of this action, Dupont teaches the soft body armor that Aquino does not explicitly set forth. Dupont also teaches: an aramid multi-layer woven fabric is disposed between the first portion and the second portion (see analysis of claim 2 above), the first portion and the second portion are sewn together (see analysis of claim 3 above), and that the third portion is sewn to the first subpanel and the fourth portion is sewn to the first subpanel and the third portion (see analysis of claims 6 and 7 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the ballistic vest of Aquino by including the soft body armor taught by Dupont, under the motivation of providing protection via a stacked configuration of improved polyethylene supplied in a fabric that is self-supporting and can be easily handled (see Dupont para. [0002]).
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0013495 in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0375202 (hereinafter referred to as “the AQUINO/DUPONT combination), as applied to claims 8 and 10 above, further in view of WO 2020165212 (hereinafter referred to as “TEIJIN ARAMID”).
Regarding claim 11, the Aquino/Dupont combination establishes that first and second portions being sewn together is prior art, but does not address the limitation requiring that the two portions be specifically sewn together about a perimeter of the first subpanel.
Teijin Aramid discloses a ballistic resistant article based on sheets, similar to that of Dupont, whereby the sheets are sewn together about a perimeter of a first subpanel.
Based on the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching taught by Dupont, in the Aquino/Dupont combination, to conform to a peripheral placement, similar to the manner taught by Teijin Aramid, since stitching two sheets of a material together along a peripheral edge would be obvious to try.
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 Para. [0038] “The fabrics described above may be a component in an article, exemplary examples being a ballistic-resistant or cut-resistant article.”
2 See para. [0019]
3 See abstract
4 See para. [0011]
5 See Fig. 1C and para. [0011] “In a preferred embodiment, each sheet in the stack is placed in an orientation such that the direction of draw in one sheet is orthogonal with respect to the direction of draw in the next sheet.”
6 Para. [0051] – “Stitch bonding is a well known term in the textile art and is a technique in which fibers are connected by stitches that are sewn or knitted through the fabric or sheet.”
7 See p. 17, ll. 27-29 – “For instance, the stack of sheets may be stitched together on the peripheral edges or placed in a holding bag to conform a ballistic-resistant article.”
8 Para. [0029] - “It is a further object to provide frame panels with a three dimensional pocket like receptacle for receiving the inserted protective pliable material”.
9 Para. [0032] - “the torso vest frame garment shall be compromised of front and back panels, and rectangular frame panel disposed over a placement carrier, which incorporates the inserted or removable pliable protective body armor panels.”
Prosecution Insights