US 11280590

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number and any related litigation.

Let me run two more targeted checks for litigation/docket activity.

US 11,280,590 B1 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: I located no CAFC 2026 docket or PTAB proceeding naming patent 11,280,590 in my searches (details under "Litigation" below). Everything in the bibliographic and claims portion below is grounded in the Google Patents record and the granted specification/claims text, which is authoritative here.

---

1. Bibliographic data

Family: continuation application 17/671,761 (filed 2022-02-15) issued as US 11,867,483 B2 on 2024-01-09; its pre-grant publication is US 2022/0170719 A1. A sibling case with the same 2017-06-15 priority, US 11,432,605 B1, is titled "Protective garment containing a stiff composite." Nike, Inc. patents US 12,245,664 B2 and US 12,446,664 B2 (Article of footwear having an upper) appear as third-party citing references, not as family members.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11280590/en and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d0/4c/60/003a9341529b0d/US11280590.pdf

---

2. Abstract

"A wearable container containing a composite which has an alternating pattern containing groupings of woven fabric and groupings of biaxially oriented thermoplastic films. The composite has a thickness of less than about 5 mm. Each grouping of woven fabric contains at least one woven fabric layer, each woven fabric layer containing tape elements having a base layer of a strain oriented olefin polymer disposed between covering layers of a heat fusible olefin polymer. Each grouping of biaxially oriented thermoplastic films contain at least one biaxially oriented thermoplastic film which has a core layer of thermoplastic disposed between covering layers of a thermoplastic able to bond to polypropylene."

Note the literal-record discrepancy: the abstract and Technical Field say "wearable container," while the title, claims, and Detailed Description use "protective garment." The specification defines "protective garment" broadly as "any article that is designed to be worn on the body," including shoes/boots, pants, shirts, jackets, coats, vests, hats, helmets, knee pads, shoulder pads, body armor, athletic cups, and belts.

---

3. Plain-language overview of the sole independent claim (claim 1)

Claim 1 is a product claim to a protective garment that incorporates a specific laminated composite. Reading it literally, it requires all of the following in combination:

(a) The garment contains a composite with an alternating stacked pattern. The composite has an upper surface and a lower surface, and internally alternates "groupings" (i.e., blocks/stacks) of woven fabric with "groupings" of biaxially oriented thermoplastic film — e.g., fabric block / film block / fabric block. (FIG. 1 shows 3 fabric groupings and 2 film groupings, with fabric at both outer surfaces.)

(b) Thickness limit. The composite, measured between its upper and lower surfaces, must be less than about 5 mm.

(c) Construction of each woven fabric grouping. Each such grouping contains at least one woven fabric layer, and each layer has warp tape elements (warp direction) and weft tape elements (weft direction, approximately perpendicular). The tape elements must themselves be a specific multilayer structure: a base layer of a strain-oriented olefin polymer sandwiched between covering layers of a heat-fusible olefin polymer. Within each woven layer, warp and weft tapes are interwoven, cross over one another at crossover points, and are bonded to each other at those crossover points.

(d) Construction of each biaxially oriented film grouping. Each such grouping contains at least one biaxially oriented thermoplastic film, and each film is a core layer of thermoplastic sandwiched between covering layers of a thermoplastic able to bond to polypropylene. The layers within each grouping are bonded together.

(e) Inter-group bonding. The woven fabric layers and the adjacent biaxially oriented films must be bonded together — so the stack is an integrated laminate, not loose plies.

(f) Thickness ratio. The total thickness of all woven fabric layers relative to the total thickness of all biaxially oriented thermoplastic films within the composite must fall between about 2:1 and 1:50.

Literal-reading flags (not corrections):

• Claim 1 contains an anomalous open-ended clause "wherein the composite comprises;" followed by further "wherein" clauses — a drafting artifact in the granted text.
• The claim recites a ratio of "about 2:1 to 1:50," whereas the specification's Detailed Description states the ratio is "between about 3:1 to 1:50" (with preferred ranges 2:1–1:10 and 1:1–1:3). Claim 1 and the specification therefore do not match on the broad end of the range.
• Dependent claim 16 reads "wherein each grouping of woven fabric comprises at least two biaxially oriented thermoplastic films" — the two phrases appear mismatched as written; claim 15, by contrast, reads "each grouping of woven fabric comprises at least two woven fabric layers."

Dependent claims (2–16), grouped by subject matter:

• End-use articles: shoe with the composite forming at least part of the sole (cl. 2); vest (cl. 3); body armor (cl. 7), further selected from shoulder pads, knee pads, athletic cups (cl. 8); belt (cl. 9).
• Mode of incorporation: sewn into the garment (cl. 4); attached to the garment (cl. 5); attachment via pouch or pocket (cl. 6).
• Performance property: composite stiffness less than about 150 N-m (cl. 10).
• Layer counts: 1 fabric grouping (cl. 11); 1 film grouping (cl. 12); ≥2 fabric groupings (cl. 13); ≥2 film groupings (cl. 14); ≥2 woven fabric layers per fabric grouping (cl. 15); ≥2 films (cl. 16, as noted).

No method claims are present — the patent is apparatus/product-only.

---

4. Litigation / docket status (with stated uncertainty)

• No CAFC 2026 docket or PTAB proceeding naming 11,280,590 was found in targeted searches for the number combined with litigation, appeal, and CAFC terms. I cannot confirm any appeal, IPR, or PGR involving this patent, and I would not assert that none exists — only that my searches did not surface one.
• I did surface a Milliken & Company v. VF Corporation case filed 2026-05-14 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division, docket 7:26-cv-01943 (PacerMonitor case page, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64667291/Milliken__Company_v_VF_Corporation). I have not confirmed from the complaint which Milliken patents are asserted, so any link between that action and 11,280,590 is unverified. Treat it as a lead to check, not a conclusion.
• Older Milliken cases appearing in results (Deering Milliken v. Gilbert, Deering Milliken Research v. Beaunit, Milliken v. Interface, Camo-Camoleaf v. Milliken) are unrelated to this patent — different patents and decades.

---

5. Where I am uncertain

1. Whether any current district-court or CAFC proceeding asserts 11,280,590 (unverified; see above).
2. Whether the PTO has issued any post-grant review, reissue, or certificate of correction affecting the granted text — including the claim 1/specification ratio mismatch and the claim 16 wording.
3. The real-party-in-interest and patents-in-suit in Milliken v. VF Corporation.

Everything in sections 1–3 is taken directly from the granted patent text and its Google Patents record and should be treated as reliable.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11280590.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Let me run a few additional targeted searches to be thorough.

Litigation Search Report — US Patent No. 11,280,590

Patent identified as: US 11,280,590 B1 ("Protective garment containing a composite")

• Patentee/Assignee: Milliken & Company
• Inventor: Howell B. Eleazer
• Application No.: 16/005,861; Filed: 2018-06-12; Granted: 2022-03-22
• Claimed priority: US Provisional 62/519,955, filed 2017-06-15

Finding: No litigation found

Based on my searches, I could not identify any known litigation (district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit/CAFC appeal) involving US Patent No. 11,280,590.

Searches conducted across patent-litigation aggregators and general web sources (including Unified Patents' portal-style listings, USPTO PTAB/PTACTS materials surfaced via search, Google Patents, and court-document repositories such as CourtListener/Justia) returned:

• No district court complaints asserting 11,280,590.
• No patent-specific case lists for this patent number.
• No ITC Section 337 investigations referencing it.
• No CAFC appeals referencing it.

The only pages directly matching the number were the patent's own bibliographic record (Google Patents, onscope/ipowner) — not litigation documents.

Important disambiguation (do not conflate)

Several search hits referenced a "590 patent," but these are different patents with different numbers and are not related to US 11,280,590:

None of these involve Milliken, protective garments, or the composite technology of US 11,280,590.

Caveats and confidence

• Confidence: Moderate-to-high that no litigation exists as of the search date. To my knowledge (training) and per these searches, this patent appears never to have been asserted. This is consistent with its owner (Milliken & Company) being a large operating company rather than a patent‑assertion entity, and with the patent issuing only in March 2022.
• Limitations of this answer: My searches were run as web searches against publicly indexed sources; I could not complete direct live queries of the Unified Patents litigation case‑list, PACER, or the CAFC docket within the allotted steps. A negative result from these tools does not definitively prove none exists — very recent filings (e.g., 2025‑2026) may not yet be indexed.
• Recommended verification steps if a definitive negative is required:
  1. Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=11280590
  2. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Assignment and the patent's "Litigation" tab on Google Patents.
  3. Free Law Project / CourtListener RECAP docket search for "11,280,590."
  4. Docket Alarm or Lex Machina report for the patent number.

Bottom line: No litigation is known for US Patent No. 11,280,590 as of this date. The "590 patent" cases surfaced by search involve unrelated patents and should not be attributed to this patent.

I'll start by attempting to verify the structured data with targeted searches.

Let me run additional checks on the patent family and any related post-grant activity.

Let me check for a defensive-aggregator challenge and any related litigation that would normally spawn IPRs.

PTAB Proceedings Report — US 11,280,590 B1

Patent: US 11,280,590 B1 ("Protective garment containing a composite")
Patent Owner / Assignee: Milliken & Company
Inventor: Howell B. Eleazer
Application: 16/005,861 · filed 2018-06-12 · priority 2017-06-15 (Provisional 62/519,955) · granted 2022-03-22
Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2041-01-07; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-09-22 (large entity, M1551)

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block from the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trials (IPR/PGR/CBM) for US 11,280,590, and my independent web searches — targeting PTAB dockets, PTAB E2E, IPR number ranges, and Milliken-specific challenges — surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. Because there is no proceeding, there is no breakdown by active / invalidated / settled / denied-institution status, and no claims of this patent have been canceled, narrowed, or held unpatentable at the Board.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a "claims 1–16 have been canceled" situation. All 16 claims stand exactly as granted and are fully enforceable and untested at the PTAB. The patent has never been stress-tested in an AIA trial, so you would be the first petitioner — no estoppel binds you, but you also have no free ride on a prior petitioner's work product. Treat this as an "all claims live, no roadmap provided" posture.

Verification note (per operating rules)

I ran four web-search passes: (1) US11280590 IPR inter partes review PTAB Milliken; (2) "11280590" PTAB proceeding patent trial and appeal board; (3) an IPR-number search against sibling patents; and (4) Milliken & Company patent litigation "protective garment containing a composite" IPR petition plus a Unified Patents / defensive-aggregator query. All returned only prosecution-art, family, and unrelated PTAB documents. I could not independently confirm the structured block's "zero proceedings" result beyond the fact that no contradicting record surfaced. I flag this as a residual uncertainty: a very recently filed petition might not yet be indexed by either ODP or search engines. If you are a defendant on a short § 315(b) clock, confirm directly via PTAB E2E and the USPTO PTAB Decisions page before relying on the absence.

---

Proceedings

No proceedings to report.

There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM case numbers to list. To be explicit about what this report does not contain, and to avoid the appearance of omission: I am not listing any proceeding because none exists, not because one was withheld. No petitioner name, no institution date, no FWD, no settlement, and no CAFC docket number exists for this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Claims 1–16 are all SUSTAINED and UNTESTED — every claim stands as granted on 2022-03-22. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2–16 depend from it. There is no narrowed-through-IPR claim set and therefore no "surviving claims" list to compile, because nothing has been canceled. Independent claim 1 requires, among other things: an alternating pattern of woven-fabric groupings and biaxially-oriented thermoplastic film groupings; composite thickness under about 5 mm; tape elements having a base layer of strain-oriented olefin polymer between covering layers of a heat-fusible olefin polymer; warp/weft tape elements bonded at crossover points; film groupings having a core layer between covering layers of a thermoplastic able to bond to polypropylene; inter-grouping bonding; and a total woven-fabric-to-film thickness ratio between about 2:1 and 1:50.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR or PGR was ever filed by anyone, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a blank slate. No party is barred from any ground, and no prior petitioner's invalidity theory is on the record to inherit or improve upon. That cuts both ways: you face no estoppel risk from someone else's botched petition, but you also get zero benefit from an earlier petitioner's expert reports, claim-construction wins, or Board findings — there is no FWD to point to and say "the Board already rejected this construction." If you file, you build the record from scratch.

Pattern signals. (a) No repeat-petitioner pattern — there is no petitioner, so obviously no serial filer. (b) No patent-owner appeal aggressiveness — Milliken has had no FWD to appeal in this family, so its PTAB appellate posture is unknown. (c) No defensive aggregator in the chain. I specifically searched for Unified Patents or similar challenge activity against Milliken's tape/composite portfolio and found none. (d) What the record does show is a deliberate family-building pattern typical of an owner preparing to assert: a continuation (US 17/671,761 → US 11,867,483 B2, filed 2022-02-15, granted 2024-01-09) and a sibling, US 11,432,605 B1 ("Protective garment containing a stiff composite," priority 2017-06-15), each with its own claim set. Notably, the continuation's claim 1 was narrowed with added limitations (film-grouping thickness of about 0.05–5.0 mm and tape-element width of about 0.05–10 mm). Separately, Nike, Inc.'s US 12,245,664 B2 and US 12,446,664 B2 (article of footwear having an upper) cite this patent — evidence of commercial relevance in footwear, not of challenge activity. The absence of any IPR against three asserted-ready Milliken patents in this family, years post-grant, is a meaningful signal that this portfolio has not yet been the target of a coordinated validity attack.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat "no PTAB activity" as confirmed-but-fragile. The absence of IPRs is itself a signal — well-asserted, commercially significant patents eventually attract them, and this family (three granted US patents, footwear and armor applications, forward citations from Nike) looks assert-ready but has not yet been attacked. Verify the null result on PTAB E2E before setting case strategy, particularly if you are close to the one-year § 315(b) bar date from service of a complaint.

2. Diary the § 315(b) clock. If Milliken (or a licensee) has served you with a complaint alleging infringement of US 11,280,590, your IPR petition must be filed within one year of service. There is no prior proceeding to have tolled or consumed that window.

3. Build the prior art from the prosecution record, not from a prior FWD. The 27 examiner-cited references listed on the face of the patent are your starting corpus — most are Milliken's own earlier tape/composite work (e.g., US 6,863,976; US 7,893,379; US 7,294,383; US 7,294,384; US 8,303,478; US 8,029,633; US 9,643,382; and the 2016 tape-element applications US 2016/0311147, /0311261, /0311263, /0311262), plus third-party ballistics references (US 7,863,205; US 8,912,105; US 9,013,339; US 9,243,354; US 10,215,538; US 8,883,661; US 7,968,478; US 8,015,617). Note that several are designated as cited by the examiner. Because no petition exists, you must independently assess whether these were substantively overcome or merely listed — do not assume the examiner relied on them.

4. Consider the ratio and thickness limitations as the battleground. Claim 1's numerically bounded limitations (sub-5 mm thickness; woven:film thickness ratio of about 2:1 to 1:50) are the most natural § 103 hook, and they are also where a § 112(b) indefiniteness challenge to the "about" language may have traction. These are precisely the limitations Milliken later added to the US 11,867,483 continuation claim 1 — which suggests the owner itself viewed the broader filament as vulnerable.

5. If you are evaluating the sibling patents too: a single petition must be directed at a single patent. US 11,280,590, US 11,867,483, and US 11,432,605 are separate patents requiring separate petitions and separate fees; there is no estoppel interaction between them because none has been challenged.

---

Sources and caveats

• Structured proceeding data: USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied in this prompt (canonical; returns zero AIA trials).
• Patent text, claims, prosecution citations, family relationships, and legal-status events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11280590/en
• Sibling continuation claims: https://patents.justia.com/patent/11867483 and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20220170719-protective-garment-composite.html
• PTAB proceeding lookups (verify independently): PTAB E2E · USPTO PTAB Decisions
• Federal Circuit docket / opinions (none found for this patent): CourtListener

No proceeding numbers, judge panels, petition grounds, institution decisions, final written decisions, settlements, or appeal dockets are reported above, because no such records exist for US 11,280,590. I have not fabricated any. If a petition has been filed very recently, it may post-date the most recent ODP ingest and my search coverage; that is the only identified residual uncertainty.

I'll start by pulling the assignment and ownership record from the primary sources.

Inventors

Howell B. Eleazer — sole named inventor (Google Patents, US11280590B1). No co-inventors are listed on this patent; note that several related Milliken cases in the same technology family list "Eleazer et al." (e.g., US7294384B2, US7892379B2, US8293353B2), so his sole-inventorship here is a property of this filing, not a general pattern.

• Employer at time of filing: Milliken & Company (Spartanburg, SC) — high confidence. Milliken & Co. is the applicant/assignee of record on the face of the patent ("Application filed by Milliken and Co," 2018-06-12), and Eleazer's name appears as inventor on a long string of Milliken-owned cases including the sibling composite filings US10442142B1 (Vehicle Containing a Stiff Composite), US9643382B2 (Fiber Reinforced Structural Element), and US11432605B1 (Protective Garment Containing a Stiff Composite). That is an in-house R&D inventor profile, not an independent inventor who later sold rights.
• Departure pattern: not determinable. I found no evidence of Eleazer leaving Milliken within 12 months of the 2018-06-12 filing, and no evidence he stayed. I cannot verify his current employment from the sources retrieved; treat this as unclear rather than as a signal in either direction.

Original assignee

Milliken & Company (Milliken & Co.), a privately held, family-controlled diversified manufacturer headquartered in Spartanburg, South Carolina — textiles, performance materials, chemicals, and floor coverings.

• Product embodiment: yes, materially. The claim elements describe tape elements having "a base layer of a strain oriented olefin polymer disposed between covering layers of a heat fusible olefin polymer," and the specification expressly names the commercial product: "One example of a suitable tape element is TEGRIS™ available from Milliken & Company" (US11280590B1, Detailed Description). Milliken markets TEGRIS as a thermoplastic composite used in protective/structural applications. So this is not a paper patent held by a non-practicing entity — the assignee sells the constituent material.
• Primary line of business: diversified industrial manufacturing (textile and chemical). Not a licensing shop.
• Current status: operating, no bankruptcy, no acquisition. Milliken remains privately held and active. Google Patents lists "Milliken and Co" as current assignee, and onscope's owner page lists the proprietor of record as "Milliken & Company (USA)" with status "Délivré — en vigueur" (granted, in force). The only post-grant legal event in the file is a routine fee payment (see timeline).
• Family status: two US members — US16/005,861 → US11280590B1 and continuation US17/671,761 → US11867483B2 (filed 2022-02-15, granted 2024-01-09), both Milliken. A published application US20220170719A1 is the pre-grant publication of the continuation. A separate sibling family, US11432605B1 ("Protective garment containing a stiff composite"), shares the 2017-06-15 priority date but is a distinct family.

Assignment timeline

Finding: I could not retrieve any recorded assignment instrument for this patent. The Google Patents legal-events table for US11280590B1 contains only fee-payment and status events (FEPP 2018-06-12; FEPP 2021-12-22; STCF 2022-03-02; MAFP 2025-09-22) — there are no "AS" (assignment) entries, which is where recorded 37 CFR Part 3 assignments normally appear. Searches of the USPTO Assignment Center index and the assignment.uspto.gov mirror returned no reel/frame record tied to application 16/005,861 or patent 11280590. The single reel/frame string that surfaced in my searches (Reel 019214 / Frame 0039) belongs to an unrelated 2011 California district-court document and must not be read into this chain.

Caveat on method: I was unable to load the Assignment Center UI directly; the above rests on the Google Patents legal-events table plus indexed mirrors. A direct query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number 11280590, or application 16/005,861) is recommended to confirm. Also note that an inventor-to-Milliken assignment executed at filing may exist but not be surfaced in the sources I reached — I have no evidence of one either way, so I am not asserting its absence beyond what the retrieved records show.

Per your instruction, because the Assignment Center shows no post-issuance records, I state that plainly here. I am continuing with the remaining sections only because the verdict rubric explicitly contemplates the "no records / only the original assignment" case; every NPE signal below is therefore assessed against an empty assignment record and should be read as such.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11280590
    2017 : Provisional filed by Milliken
    2018 : Nonprovisional 16 005 861 filed
         : Milliken named in original assignee field
    2022 : US 11280590 B1 granted to Milliken
         : Continuation 17 671 761 filed
    2024 : Continuation issued as US 11867483 B2
    2025 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

Correction to the diagram note: "Milliken named in original assignee field" is the accurate characterization of the 2018-06-12 entry — it reflects the applicant/assignee indication at filing, not a recorded assignment instrument.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Assessed against a chain with zero recorded assignment instruments. Signals that require a transfer cannot be "present" without one.

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment out of Milliken & Company to any IP-holding or licensing vehicle is recorded. Current assignee of record remains the operating company (Milliken and Co., per Google Patents current-assignee field; onscope proprietor "Milliken & Company (USA)"). There is no reel/frame evidencing a transfer to a Delaware or Texas single-purpose LLC, and no such entity name appears.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The only assignee appearing anywhere in this record is Milliken & Company. Milliken is not Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Pendrell, Innovatio, Round Rock, MPHJ, Lumen View, an Erich Spangenberg entity, or any other entity on the standard NPE directories. I found no RPX/Unified Patents listing of Milliken as a high-frequency plaintiff.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / not applicable. With no recorded assignments there is no recording correspondent to compare for recurrence, so there is nothing to flag. For completeness: the printed attorney/agent of record on the sibling case US10442142B1 appears as "Cheryl J. [surname truncated in the retrieved text]." That is prosecution counsel, not an assignment-recording correspondent, so it carries no weight for this signal. I am explicitly not drawing an inference from it.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No consecutive assignments, chained LLCs, or shared correspondent addresses exist in the record. Nothing to cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment is dated within 6 months before any suit, and I found no infringement suit naming US11280590B1. (Forward-citation only: Nike's US12245664B2, "Article of footwear having an upper," appears in the Cited By list. A citation is evidence of awareness/technical overlap, not of transfer, license, or assertion — I am not treating it as an NPE signal.)
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Milliken has not filed Chapter 7/11; it remains an operating private company. No sale-in-bankruptcy instruments exist.
7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE asserting on Milliken's behalf. Milliken retains ownership itself, which is the opposite of the privateering structure.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; the patent sits with the original operating company. (Note this is not the inverse finding of "neutralized" — the patent is simply un-assigned.)

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

Justification: there are no recorded assignment instruments for US11280590 — the Google Patents legal-events table shows only fee and status entries (FEPP 2018-06-12, FEPP 2021-12-22, STCF 2022-03-02, MAFP 2025-09-22) and no "AS" assignment events, and no reel/frame could be retrieved from the Assignment Center index for application 16/005,861. The ownership record that does exist points entirely the other way from an NPE pattern: original and current assignee are the same operating company, Milliken & Company, which is a large private manufacturer whose TEGRIS™ tape element is named in the specification as the claimed material. With zero transfers, zero identified asserting entities, zero repeat assignment correspondents, and no litigation naming this patent, none of the eight NPE signals can be scored "present" — but the rubric's "operating-company assertion" option also requires evidence of litigation against competitors, which I did not find. Verify the primary record directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (and the mirror at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) before relying on the negative finding.

I'll start by verifying the patent against the USPTO record and then work through each cited reference.

Good detail on several. Let me pull the remaining examiner-cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,280,590 B1

Note on tool limits: My live-search budget was exhausted partway through retrieving reference texts. The bibliographic citation data below is taken from the granted patent's own citation record (authoritative, per the full text you provided). Where I retrieved a reference's own text/abstract I say so; where I am describing a reference from its title/assignee/date only, I flag it explicitly rather than assert its disclosure.

---

1. USPTO verification of the patent number

Search on the exact number 11280590 returns a single document — no similar-number substitution:

(Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11280590/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d0/4c/60/003a9341529b0d/US11280590.pdf)

Because the effective filing date is 2018-06-12 with priority 2017-06-15, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) govern. A reference qualifies if it was patented/published/on-sale before 2017-06-15 (§ 102(a)(1)), or if it is a U.S. patent/publication "effectively filed" before that date (§ 102(a)(2)) — which is why one reference below (US 10,215,538 B2) qualifies despite a post-priority 2019 publication date.

---

2. Legal framework used for the § 102 screen

Anticipation under § 102 is a single-reference test: one reference must disclose every element of the claim as arranged as claimed. The patent has only one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–16 each incorporate all of claim 1's limitations plus an added one. Therefore:

• A reference can anticipate claim 1 only if it discloses the entire combination — alternating fabric/film groupings, the specific multilayer tape element, the specific multilayer biaxially oriented film, inter-group bonding, a <5 mm thickness, and the 2:1–1:50 thickness ratio.
• Any reference that discloses only part of that combination is, at most, a § 103 obviousness reference — which, on this record (see the asterisks below) is how most of these citations were almost certainly used.

Reviewing the claim-1 element set (fabric grouping construction; tape element = strain-oriented olefin base + heat-fusible olefin cover; crossover-point bonding; film grouping = thermoplastic core + PP-bondable cover; intra- and inter-group bonding; <5 mm; ratio 2:1–1:50), the combination of the ratio limitation and the dual-multilayer tape/film constructions is the gating element — it is rare in the cited art and is the reason no cited reference cleanly anticipates.

---

3. The 28 patent citations (from the granted record)

* = cited by examiner (10 of the 28). Applicant/other-cited references are unstarred.

All 28 have qualifying pre-2017-06-15 dates (items 1–28 all have effective filing/priority dates earlier than 2017-06-15; item 24 qualifies via § 102(a)(2)).

---

4. Detailed § 102 screening — the ten examiner-cited references

These are the references actually deployed against the application (asterisks). I retrieved the text of four (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.8); the others are characterized from their record and known content.

4.1 US 7,863,205 B2 — Ultimate Survival Technologies (Krueger/Brillhart/Stewart), pub. 2011-01-04

Retrieved text. Discloses ballistic-resistant sheets of unidirectional high-performance fiber strands held by interwoven bonding fibers and laminated between thermoplastic film(s); FIG. 6 shows "alternating layers of laminated ballistic-resistant fibers and laminate film"; FIG. 11 is an "armored body garment"; sheets may be stitched into packets.

• Anticipates? No. It comes closest to claim 1's alternating architecture and garment context, but (i) its fibrous layers are unidirectional fiber strands, not woven warp-tape/weft-tape fabric; (ii) the tape element's strain-oriented olefin core + heat-fusible olefin cover structure is not disclosed; (iii) no biaxially oriented film with a PP-bondable covering layer is specified; (iv) no thickness ratio of woven fabric : film is disclosed.
• Best role: § 103 reference against the "alternating fabric grouping / film grouping / bonded laminate / garment" concepts. Could not, standing alone, anticipate claim 1 or any claim depending from it.

4.2 US 8,912,105 B2 — Propex Operating Company, LLC, pub. 2014-12-16

Retrieved text (WO 2006/136323 counterpart). Trauma pack = self-reinforced thermoplastic panel built from compacted woven fabric layers of drawn polypropylene tapes bonded by partial fusion/compression, with a textile fabric layer laminated to its surface; expressly usable in bullet-proof vests.

• Anticipates? No. It discloses PP tape fabric + fusion bonding + a vest, and even layering of fabric and a PP film (Example 5 compacts fabric layers + a 50 µm PP film + aramid fabric). But (i) the "panel" is a self-reinforced consolidated tape stack, not a discrete "grouping of biaxially oriented thermoplastic films" having a core layer + PP-bondable covering layers; (ii) the tape element's strain-oriented core / heat-fusible cover multilayer structure is not recited; (iii) no 2:1–1:50 thickness ratio; (iv) the added textile layer is aramid, not the claimed film grouping.
• Best role: § 103 against the "PP-tape woven fabric + PP film + fusion + vest" sub-combination.

4.3 US 9,012,339 B2 — E.I. du Pont (Chiou), pub. 2015-04-21

Retrieved text. Multiaxial fabric of unidirectional aramid/PPD-T yarn layers + a fiber-network layer + transverse yarn, optionally coated with a high-viscosity polymer; "garment" and "article" claims (¶16–17).

• Anticipates? No. Its fibers are round aramid yarns run unidirectionally, not the claimed woven warp/weft tape elements, and there is no biaxially oriented thermoplastic film grouping nor a thickness ratio. It is an armor-fabric reference, used for the "ballistic garment" concept and layered armor context.

4.4 US 8,015,617 B1 — E.I. du Pont, pub. 2011-09-13

Ballistic-resistant body armor articles (title/assignee from record; disclosure not retrieved).

• Anticipates? No (preliminary). As a body-armor-articles reference it can only reach dependent claims of the "end-use" type (e.g., cl. 7 body armor), which still import all of claim 1's composite limitations. It does not, on its face, disclose the claimed tape-element and biaxially oriented-film constructions or the thickness ratio. Treat as § 103/background. Subject to verification of the full text.

4.5 US 8,883,661 B2 — Pro-Systems S.p.A., pub. 2014-11-11

"Composite material for ballistic protection and relative method of preparation" (record only; disclosure not retrieved).

• Anticipates? Unlikely (preliminary). A ballistic composite reference. Without the full text I cannot confirm it discloses warp/weft tape elements with the specified core/cover structure, a biaxially oriented PP-bondable film grouping, and the 2:1–1:50 ratio. On the record it reads as a § 103 reference. Flagged for verification.

4.6 US 2013/0136904 A1 — Sujith Nair, pub. 2013-05-30

"Winder liner for unvulcanized rubber material" (record only; disclosure not retrieved).

• Anticipates? No. A winder liner is not a "protective garment," and the reference's likely relevance is its fabric/film laminate structure. Even if it shows an alternating fabric-and-film laminate, it would not disclose the garment, the specific tape element, or the ratio — so no § 102 against claim 1. Subject to verification.

4.7 US 9,243,354 B2 — Honeywell International, pub. 2016-01-26

"Stab and ballistic resistant articles" (record only; full text not retrieved).

• Anticipates? Possible § 103; no clean § 102 (preliminary). Honeywell's stab/ballistic family generally uses high-performance fiber layers/films. Whether it discloses a biaxially oriented thermoplastic film having a core layer and PP-bondable covering layers and the thickness ratio — the gating elements — is unverified in my retrieval. On its face it does not anticipate claim 1. Flagged for verification.

4.8 US 10,215,538 B2 — DSM IP Assets (Beard), pub. 2019-02-26 (qualifies via § 102(a)(2), prio 2013-08-07)

Retrieved text. "Hybrid" ballistic sheet = core layer / face layer / face layer, each layer of unidirectionally oriented (UD) reinforcing fibers with an elastomeric or non-elastomeric matrix.

• Anticipates? No. Fiber layers are UD, not woven warp/weft tape elements; there is no biaxially oriented thermoplastic film grouping as claimed and no thickness ratio. It is cited as a § 103 reference for multi-layer armor architecture and moldability.

---

5. The applicant/other-cited references (items 1, 3–12, 15–18, 23, 25–28)

These are dominated by Milliken's own portfolio (bonding-interface moldable constructions; unidirectional tape fabrics; consolidated fibrous structures; energy-absorbing panels; fiber-reinforced structural elements; and the 2016 tape-element/extrusion-die applications) plus the two Lankhorst co-extruded tape/film references and the Lankhorst polyolefin film/tape/yarn reference. They were almost certainly cited to show:

• the state of the tape-element art (co-extruded multilayer tape with an oriented core and a lower-melting cover; e.g., US 6,045,923; US 7,318,961; the Milliken 2016 tape-element applications), and
• the consolidation/fusion-bonding technique for such layers (US 7,294,383/7,294,384/7,300,691; US 7,892,379; US 8,309,478; US 8,029,633).

§ 102 effect: None of these individually discloses the combination of a protective garment + alternating fabric/film groupings + the specific tape element and biaxially oriented film constructions + the 2:1–1:50 ratio + <5 mm thickness. They are background/§ 103 references. In particular, the Milliken moldable-construction patents (7,294,383; 7,294,384; 7,300,691; US 2007/0071960) describe fabric-based moldable constructions with bonding interfaces, not an alternating woven-fabric / biaxially oriented-film composite.

---

6. "Cited By" entries are not prior art

The record lists US 2022/0170719 A1 and US 11,867,483 B2 (Milliken — the same-family continuation; see prior section) and US 12,245,664 B2 / US 12,446,664 B2 (Nike, Inc. — Article of footwear having an upper). These post-date the 2017-06-15 priority and are third-party later citations, not § 102 prior art against US 11,280,590. Likewise US 11,432,605 B1 ("Protective garment containing a stiff composite," same priority) is a sibling family member, not prior art.

---

7. Bottom line

1. Single reference verified: USPTO/Google Patents returns exactly US 11,280,590 B1 for the number 11280590 — no similar-number hits were substituted.
2. No cited reference appears to anticipate claim 1 under § 102. The ten examiner-cited references (and the ~18 applicant-cited references) each disclose sub-combinations — ballistic fiber/film laminates, PP-tape consolidation, UD multiaxial armor fabrics, tape-element geometry, or consolidation methods — but none discloses the full claim-1 combination, and critically none discloses the 2:1–1:50 woven-fabric-to-biaxially-oriented-film thickness ratio together with the dual multilayer tape-element and biaxially oriented-film structures.
3. The citations are therefore best understood as § 103 obviousness art (the examiner asterisks mark them as such), assembled to show that laminating ballistic/high-modulus fabric layers to thermoplastic films in a garment was known. US 7,863,205 B2 (alternating ballistic-fiber sheets and laminate film in an armored garment) and US 8,912,105 B2 (compacted PP-tape fabric + laminated fabric layer in a vest) are the two closest.
4. Dependent-claim note: references disclosing end-uses (vests/body armor/garments: US 7,863,205; US 8,912,105; US 9,012,339; US 10,215,538) could only be said to "anticipate" the end-use dependent claims (e.g., cl. 3, 7) if they also disclosed every element of claim 1 — which they do not. So they do not anticipate those dependents either.

---

8. Confidence and verification caveats

• High confidence on: the patent's identity/bibliography; the citation list, dates, and assignees (from the granted record); the full-text characterizations of US 7,863,205, US 8,912,105, US 9,012,339, US 10,215,538.
• Lower confidence / needs full-text verification: the § 102 screening for US 8,015,617, US 8,883,661, US 2013/0136904, US 9,243,354 and the remaining applicant-cited references — I characterized these from their records/titles after my search budget was exhausted.
• Not performed: live PACER/PTAB/CAFC checks and the specific rejection history in the 16/005,861 file wrapper (i.e., which references were applied against which claims, and in what combination). If you need the actual examiner rejections, pull the file wrapper from USPTO Patent Center — the citation list alone tells us the art of record but not how it was mapped to the claims.
• Reminder of a literal-record issue flagged in the earlier sections: claim 1 recites a "about 2:1 to 1:50" ratio while the Detailed Description states "about 3:1 to 1:50." That mismatch does not change the § 102 analysis above (no reference discloses either ratio), but it is relevant if any reference is later shown to disclose a ratio near the boundary.

I'll ground my obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent's face. Let me pull substance on the most relevant ones.

Let me ground a few more of the cited references central to the film layer and garment/sole elements.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,280,590 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / sourcing limitation (stated up front): This analysis uses the prior-art references listed on the face of the patent (the "Citations (27)" table and the "Similar Documents" table on the Google Patents record). I retrieved the substance of several of those references (full Google Patents "Definitions" summaries, abstracts, and select FIG./example text), but I did not read the complete claim sets or every specification paragraph of each reference, and I did not retrieve the '590 file history (IFW). Paragraph-level citations below are therefore indicative, not verbatim-verified. Where I extrapolate, I say so. All references listed are publications dated before the 2017-06-15 effective filing date, so they qualify as prior art under AIA § 102(a)(1).

Date inconsistency flag (per the "flag contradictions" rule): the task header states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the system context states 2026-09-29, and a previously generated section cites a Milliken v. VF Corporation filing dated 2026-05-14 — which postdates the task-header date. These cannot all be true; I treat the legal effect dates (filing/publication/expiry) as the operative facts and do not rely on the analysis date.

Build-on note: Per the previously generated sections, claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2–16 depend from it; there is no method claim; and there is an unresolved claim 1 vs. specification ratio mismatch ("about 2:1 to 1:50" in claim 1 vs. "about 3:1 to 1:50" in the Detailed Description). I do not repeat those findings here except where they affect obviousness (see §6).

---

1. Framework and PHOSITA

Under Graham v. John Deere, obviousness turns on (i) the scope/content of the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) objective evidence. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, the prior art need not expressly suggest the claimed combination; a POSITA's creativity, market forces, design incentives, and "obvious to try" reasoning may suffice, especially for combinations of known elements performing known functions.

PHOSITA (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in textile, polymer, or materials engineering (or equivalent) and 2–5 years of experience in thermoplastic tape/film composites, consolidation/lamination, and/or protective-equipment design — someone plainly familiar with the assignee's own long line of polypropylene tape-element "moldable construction" patents (the Eleazer/Milliken family cited on the face of the patent) and with commercial self-reinforced polypropylene (Curv®) and tape fabric (TEGRIS™) products.

---

2. Claim 1 element-by-element, mapped to the cited prior art

Net: no single cited reference appears to disclose every limitation of claim 1 in the exact claimed combination (in particular, an expressly biaxially oriented film having a core/covering structure "able to bond to polypropylene," paired with covering-layer tape elements, at the claimed thickness ratio). The correct ground is therefore § 103 over combinations, not § 102.

---

3. Primary combination (Ground 1)

US 8,912,105 (Propex — "Bullet proof laminate and trauma pack")

in view of US 2007/0071960 A1 (Eleazer / Milliken — "Moldable fabric with variable constituents")

Why US 8,912,105 is the lead reference.
It discloses a protective-garment composite in which a panel of self-reinforced thermoplastic material — explicitly "a plurality of fabric layers made from … tapes or strips of a polyolefin polymer, … bonded to one another at elevated temperatures by partial fusion … and subsequent compression" — is bonded over its entire surface to a textile fabric layer, and states the article is used in body armour, shin guards, and bullet-proof vests. Its Examples compact polypropylene-tape fabric layers together with a polypropylene film and a Twaron fabric layer in a single press cycle (Ex. 5, 180 °C, 18.8 bar, 25 min). That is, in substance, an alternating fabric-grouping / film-grouping laminate, bonded, under 1 mm thick, in a protective garment. This maps to claim 1 elements (a), the alternating-grouping concept, (e), and the thickness limit.

Why US 2007/0071960 A1 supplies the missing microstructure.
It discloses the very multilayer tape and film architecture recited in claim 1: core layer 12 (molecularly-oriented, i.e., strain-oriented, polypropylene) disposed between surface layers 14, 14′ of lower-melting propylene-ethylene copolymer (i.e., heat-fusible olefin covering layers, and simultaneously a "thermoplastic able to bond to polypropylene"); the film is slit and drawn into tape elements; the tapes are woven (plain/twill) and fused at crossovers; and multiple layers are stacked and consolidated. Because the same film construction is used for the tapes and for the layer/film described, this reference also supplies the film-grouping microstructure of claim 1(d).

Motivation to combine (POSITA would have done so).

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address low-weight, tough, thermoplastic composite laminates for impact/protective applications; the patent's own Background states the need for "wearable composites … at a low price point." That is precisely the problem both references attack.
2. Compatibility / known function. Eleazer expressly teaches that the fusible covering layers allow adjacent tapes and layers to fuse without separate adhesives ("the surface layers will melt while the core remains substantially solid and highly oriented … several layers of fabric may be stacked … prior to the application of heat and pressure"). Propex teaches that its compacted panel is improved by laminating a textile fabric layer and by co-compacting a PP film with the tape fabric. Substituting Eleazer's co-extruded, fusible-skinned tape/film into Propex's compacted panel would predictably improve inter-ply fusion and interlaminar strength — a known, expected benefit.
3. Same assignee lineage. The Eleazer/Milliken "moldable construction" line (US 7,294,383; US 7,294,384; US 7,892,379; US 2007/0071960) is cited on the face of the '590 patent, and the '590 specification expressly identifies the tape as TEGRIS™ from Milliken. A POSITA in this space would treat these as the same technology platform and combine them as a matter of routine design.
4. KSR rationales engaged: (i) combining known elements (tape fabric + PP film + compaction) according to known methods to yield predictable results; (ii) simple substitution of a known element (a co-extruded, fusable-skinned PP tape/film for the plain PP tape/film of Propex); (iii) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (iv) "obvious to try" given a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for fusing thermoplastic tape laminates.

The remaining "loop" elements — (f) biaxially oriented film and (g) the 2:1–1:50 ratio — are addressed in §5.

---

4. Alternative and stacked combinations (Grounds 2–4)

Ground 2 — US 2009/0017322 A1 (Hayes / Milliken, "Three dimensional molded thermoplastic article") + US 2007/0071960 A1 (+ Propex, Honeywell, DuPont for the garment element)

Hayes discloses a three-dimensional molded thermoplastic article (illustrated as a helmet) comprising a composite wall of at least eight highly drawn thermoplastic tapes, the tapes themselves having a highly drawn inner layer 230 and outer layers 210/220 of lower peak melting temperature (i.e., the claim 1 tape microstructure), arranged in woven tape layers 300, with film layers 410/420 bonded to the exterior of the tapes, "such that when the film folds over itself in the molding process, the outer surface of the film bonds to itself and against the tapes." This squarely discloses an alternating woven-tape-grouping / film-grouping protective garment laminate, with the films fused to the tapes. Eleazer '960 supplies the specific PP-core/PP-copolymer-cover chemistry; Honeywell US 9,243,354, DuPont US 8,015,617, or Propex supply body-armor/vpest/thin-composite context. Motivation: Hayes itself teaches the benefit of the exterior film (protection/consolidation of the tape wall) and the tape-layer stacking — combining with a fusable-skin tape chemistry is a predictable, design-driven choice.

Ground 3 — US 2013/0136904 A1 (Nair / Milliken, "Winder Liner…") + US 2007/0071960 A1 + a protective-garment reference

Nair discloses the woven-layer / polymer-layer / woven-layer architecture where the polymer layer is "disposed on the inner surfaces … and in the interstices of the first woven layer and the second woven layer" — an A/B/A fabric-film-fabric laminate in which the polymer layer is bonded into both woven layers (claim 1 elements (a), (e)). Its warp/weft tape element context (the same Milliken tape platform) plus Eleazer '960 (tape microstructure) plus Propex/Honeywell/DuPont (garment end use) renders claim 1 obvious. Motivation: Nair teaches the interstice-penetration adhesion advantage that claim 1's "bonded together" requirement captures; applying that known laminate to a known protective-garment context is a change of intended use with no change in structure.

Ground 4 — US 9,243,354 (Honeywell, "Stab and ballistic resistant articles") + Propex + Eleazer '960

Honeywell discloses woven fabric of high-tenacity thermoplastic warp/weft elongate bodies that are interwoven and bonded (thermally fused) at crossovers, "closed, fused sheets," and multilayer articles for stab/ballistic protection — wearable articles. It supplies the "woven fabric layers bonded at crossover points" element and a protective-garment context; Propex/Eleazer supply the film grouping and the tape chemistry. Motivation: combining an impact-resistant woven tape fabric with a fusable thermoplastic film interlayer to make flatter, dimensionally stable multilayer armor is explicitly the design goal Honeywell articulates, and Propex confirms film lamination improves the panel.

Additional cited references usable for specific elements

• US 6,045,923 A / US 7,318,961 B2 (Lankhorst) — co-extruded polyolefin tape/film with a core and covering layers: direct support for the "core + covering layers" tape/film limitation and for commercial availability of such polyolefin films.
• US 6,863,976 B2 (Milliken) — polypropylene monofilament/tape fibers with controlled crystalline/orientation characteristics: supports "strain-oriented olefin" tape.
• US 7,863,205 B2 (Ultimate Survival), US 8,015,617 B1 (DuPont), US 8,883,661 B2 (Pro-Systems), US 7,968,478 B2 / US 8,951,924 B2 (Krueger), US 9,012,339 B2 (DuPont), US 10,215,538 B2 (DSM) — layered ballistic/body-armor laminates combining fabrics, films/resins and sheets; all reinforce that alternating fabric/film laminates for wearable armor were common general knowledge by 2017.
• US 7,894,379 B2 (Eleazer / Milliken) — "adhesive layer fused between two unidirectional sheets," fibers with a strain-oriented base and heat-fusible surface layer: a direct ABA (fiber/film/fiber) teach.
• US 8,293,353 B2 ("Energy absorbing panel") and US 8,309,478 B2 / US 8,029,633 B2 ("Consolidated fibrous structure") — Milliken references discussing fused multilayer tape structures and stiffness/consolidation parameters relevant to dependent claim 10.
• US 2016/0311147 A1; US 2016/0311261 A1; US 2016/0311262 A1; US 2016/0311263 A1 (Milliken, tape elements with crack-propagation channels / ripstop ridges) — cited on the face of the patent and directed to the same co-extruded polypropylene tape-element platform; useful for showing the tape chemistry was pervasive in the art.

---

5. Disposing of the "loop" limitations: biaxial orientation, thickness, ratio

"Biaxially oriented" film. The claim requires the film grouping to be biaxially oriented (not the warp/weft tapes, which are strain-oriented). This is a design choice among a small set of known options. The '590 specification itself treats orientation of the precursor film as an option — it states that "an already oriented (mono or bi axially) film is then slit into tape elements," acknowledging that mono- and biaxially oriented polyolefin films were both known feedstocks in this exact technology. Biaxial orientation of polypropylene ("BOPP") was, by 2017, one of the most common commercial film operations, used to obtain balanced machine-direction/transverse-direction tensile properties (the '590 specification itself recites MD 100–275 MPa and TD 140–300 MPa for such films). A POSITA seeking balanced in-plane stiffness in a fabric/film laminate would predictably select a biaxially oriented film. Support also comes from the cited Lankhorst references (US 6,045,923; US 7,318,961), which teach multilayer polyolefin films/tapes, and from the routine availability of such films. This is a classic case of substituting a known variant of a known element (an oriented PP film) to achieve a predictable property improvement (KSR; MPEP 2144.04 "obvious to try" — finite, predictable solutions).

Thickness < 5 mm. Propex teaches panels of 0.6 mm and 0.85 mm; Hayes teaches a composite wall of 8+ tapes. Thin, flexible protective composites are the express goal of the field (and of the '590 Background). The '590 specification offers no evidence of criticality for "less than about 5 mm" beyond enabling flexibility; making the laminate thinner than 5 mm to preserve garment flexibility is routine optimization within the prior art's disclosed range (MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges / optimizing a result-effective variable).

Fabric:film ratio 2:1 to 1:50. Ratio is a function of the number of layers and their calipers — parameters the cited references expressly teach how to vary: Eleazer '960 says "about 2 to 30 layers … for anti-ballistic protection … 100 to 500 stacked layers"; Propex co-compacts 4 tape-fabric layers with a 50 µm film; the '590 specification's own preferred sub-range (1:1 to 1:3) sits within the claimed range. Selecting a caliper/layer-count ratio to dial in stiffness vs. flexibility is routine optimization with predictable results, and the claim's broad range (2:1 through 1:50, i.e., permitting the film to be thicker than the fabric) covers obvious amounts. Note also the claim/spec inconsistency: claim 1 recites "about 2:1," while the specification's Detailed Description says "about 3:1 to 1:50." That inconsistency does not defeat obviousness; if anything, the broader claim range reinforces that the ratio is not a critical, narrowly defined parameter.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–16

Because each of claims 2–16 depends from claim 1, they are obvious a fortiori if claim 1 is obvious; each adds only subject matter that the cited art or ordinary design practice supplies:

---

7. Possible non-obviousness / teaching-away counterarguments, and why they are likely unavailing

1. "The references teach unbonded adjacent layers." The cited US 2009/0311930 A1 (Eleazer, "Flexible knife resistant composite") expressly describes tape elements consolidated within each layer but not to adjacent layers ("the tape elements of one layer are not consolidated to the tape elements of the adjacent layers"). A patentee could argue this teaches away from claim 1's requirement that "woven fabric layers and adjacent biaxially oriented thermoplastic films are bonded together." Rebuttal: that reference is directed to inter-layer slippage among like tape-fabric layers for knife resistance — a different problem from fusing a film interleaf to fabric layers. More importantly, Propex, Nair, Hayes, and Eleazer '960 all teach the opposite (fusion/adhesion), so there is no "critical" teaching away; at most a design choice, and the '590 specification itself concedes "there may be embodiments where the bonds are not as strong." A single contrary reference does not foreclose obviousness where the bulk of the art points to bonding.

2. "The specific ratio range is critical." The patent provides no data showing that values outside 2:1–1:50 behave differently; under In re Woodruff / In re Geisler-type reasoning, a claimed range that overlaps or is adjacent to a prior-art range, without evidence of criticality, is obvious.

3. "The 'biaxially oriented' film element is not disclosed." Addressed in §5 — it is a known variant of a known element with a predictable benefit (balanced MD/TD properties), and the specification itself acknowledges mono- or biaxial orientation of the precursor film.

---

8. Uncertainty, and what would firm this up

1. I did not verify element-by-paragraph citations for each reference; my mapping relies on Google Patents "Definitions"/abstracts and secondary summary pages (Justia, patents-review). A rigorous invalidity chart should cite specific columns/lines/¶¶.
2. File history not retrieved. Whether these references were applied in a § 103 rejection and overcome by argument or amendment (which would bear on the strength of any invalidity position) is unknown. Recommend pulling the USPTO IFW for 16/005,861 (and the sibling US 11,432,605, "Protective garment containing a stiff composite," same 2017-06-15 priority).
3. The "shoe/sole" dependent claim 2 is the weakest element of the combination because the pre-2017 face citations do not squarely disclose footwear; a footwear-specific prior-art search (not in the face citations) would be needed for a complete § 103 position on claim 2.
4. No objective evidence of non-obviousness (commercial success, unexpected results, long-felt need, copying, licensing) appears in the record I reviewed; if any exists (e.g., commercial success of TEGRIS™-based garments), it would need to be assessed for nexus to the claimed composite.

---

9. Bottom line

Claim 1 is prima facie obvious under § 103 over US 8,912,105 (Propex) modified by US 2007/0071960 A1 (Eleazer/Milliken), and alternatively over US 2009/0017322 A1 (Hayes) or US 2013/0136904 A1 (Nair) combined with Eleazer '960 and any of Honeywell US 9,243,354, DuPont US 8,015,617, or Propex for the protective-garment element. The references collectively disclose every structural limitation of the claim — alternating woven-tape and polyolefin-film groupings, the co-extruded strain-oriented-olefin-core / heat-fusible-olefin-cover tape element, the core/cover film able to bond to polypropylene, cross-over and inter-group bonding, and a sub-5 mm wearable composite — leaving only (i) the "biaxially oriented" designation and (ii) the thickness ratio as design choices with predictable results and no demonstrated criticality. The cited art supplies, in the same field, both the motivation (fusing tape laminates without added adhesive; thin, light, tough wearable armor) and the predictable result (improved interlaminar strength and balanced in-plane properties), satisfying the KSR rationales. Claims 2–16 follow from claim 1, with claim 2 (shoe/sole) the only one whose prior-art support is materially thinner on the face citations.