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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29, claims 1 and 19 recite a first nonwoven “bonded-fiber” fabric material and a second nonwoven “bonded-fiber” fabric material, where in the first nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material and the second nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material consist of a carrier matrix and a plurality of filaments, wherein the carrier matrix consists of threads arranged orthogonally to each other, and wherein the plurality of filaments are bidirectionally oriented filaments, which are aligned in parallel to the orthogonally arranged threads of the carrier matrix. Although Applicants’ remarks of July 28, 2025, recite support for the amendments at paragraph 0011 of the Specification as published, paragraph 0011 does not recite a “bonded-fiber” fabric material as claimed, including the bonded-fiber fabric materials consisting of the claimed carrier matrix and plurality of filaments as claimed. The limitations constitute new matter.
Note that although Applicants recite that “bonded-fiber fabric” and “nonwoven fabric” can both be used as translation of the German germ “Faservliesstoff,” the recited terms do not comprise the claimed “bonded-fiber nonwoven fabric,” nor has Applicants’ amended the specification with evidence providing that such a translation is appropriate.
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 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29, claims 1 and 19 recite a first nonwoven “bonded-fiber” fabric material and a second nonwoven “bonded-fiber” fabric material, wherein the first nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material and the second nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material consist of a carrier matrix and a plurality of filaments, wherein the carrier matrix consists of threads arranged orthogonally to each other, and wherein the plurality of filaments are bidirectionally oriented filaments. Although the claims require both filaments and threads, the claims do not require fibers, even though the claims recite a “bonded-fiber fabric material.” Therefore, it is unclear if the recitation of a “bonded-fiber fabric material” is consistent with the recited structure.
Additionally, claims 1 and 19 recite that the carrier matrix consists of threads arranged orthogonally to each other, and that the plurality of filaments are bidirectionally oriented filaments, which are aligned in parallel to the orthogonally arranged threads of the carrier matrix. It is unclear how bidirectionally oriented filaments collectively can be aligned in parallel to orthogonally arranged threads.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is dependent on claim 17, which has been canceled. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 26, the claims each recite “the nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric.” However, the claims are dependent from claims 1 and 19, which recite a first nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric and a second nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric. It is unclear which nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric is referenced in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,403,641 to Linville in view of USPN 4,444,822 to Doyle and US Pub. No. 2010/0275828 to Stein.
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29, Linville teaches a reinforced laminated sailcloth comprising outer layers of material having sandwiched therebetween a layer of reinforcing material, the layer of reinforcing material preferably comprising first and second layers of parallel spaced apart strands of stretch resistant material inclined at an angle to one another (Linville, Abstract). Linville teaches that first and second outer layer may comprise a film of dimensionally stable resin having high stretch resistance, a woven, a non-woven, warp-knit, a combination of at least two films, fabrics or both, or a reinforced laminated cloth having strands of a stretch resistant material (Id., column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 11, claims 9 and 11). Linville teaches that fabric outer layers advantageously provide a relatively soft and easy to handle laminated cloth, higher durability and tear resistance, whereas film outer layers are light weight and high stretch resistance (Id.). Linville teaches that when the outer layer comprises a fabric, the fabric is advantageously one in which yarns are comprised of synthetic materials such as polyesters (Id., column 4 lines 25-32). Linville teaches that both outer layers may be fabrics, wherein the fabric is aligned so that its warp threads substantially bisect a first angle of the strands in a first layer (Id., claims 1 and 9). Linville teaches that the fabric is aligned so that its warp threads substantially bisect the first angle (Id., claim 10). Linville teaches that the reinforcing material may be fabricated from polymeric fibers having high stretch resistance, including Kevlar (Id., column 4 lines 54-68). Linville teaches that the strands in one reinforcing layer are all aligned in a direction which describes an acute angle with respect to the direction in which the strands from the other layer are aligned, the angle having a value which lies within the range of about 2° to about 90°, preferably within the range of about 4° to about 40° (Id., column 4 lines 40-54). Linville teaches that the laminate is cut into appropriate lengths and configurations in order to be fashioned into a finished article such as a sail (Id., column 5 lines 44-52).
Linville does not appear to teach the outer nonwoven fabric layers with bidirectionally aligned filaments and the claimed inner layers comprising three inner layers as claimed.
Regarding the claimed outer layers, as set forth above, Linville teaches that fabric outer layers may be nonwoven or a warp-knit, and advantageously provide a relatively soft and easy to handle laminated cloth, higher durability and tear resistance, whereas film outer layers are light weight and high stretch resistance.
Doyle teaches a sailcloth comprising a laminate of a continuous sheet of synthetic resin bonded to an unwoven, warp knit scrim (Doyle, Abstract), such as a dimensionally stable, non-woven knit reinforcement scrim (Id., column 1 lines 45-57). Doyle teaches that the scrim is a system of spaced, parallel strands laid up in layers with the strands in one layer crossing those in the other layer (Id., column 1 lines 13-34). Doyle teaches that an adhesive of synthetic resin is employed to bond the film and scrim to each other (Id.). Doyle teaches that the strands of the scrim are desirably laid up at right angles and preferably are comprised of synthetic fibers such as filaments of polyester (Id.). Doyle teaches that the laminate can include two or more scrims (Id., column 1 lines 45-57). Doyle teaches that the sailcloth is highly resistant to stretching (Id., column 1 lines 5-10), as a layer of spaced parallel weft strands laid up on a layer of spaced parallel weft strands is inherently inextensible except by stretching of the yarns themselves since the strands contain no deviations or sinuosities characteristic of a woven structure (Id., column 1 line 64 to column 2 line 15).
Linville establishes outer layers comprising a combination of at least two nonwoven, woven or warp-knit fabric layers having aligned filaments, wherein the outer layers comprise properties including high durability and tear resistance, and light weight and high stretch resistance. Doyle establishes a nonwoven knit reinforcement for use in sailcloths, comprising a layer of spaced parallel weft strands laid up at right angles to a layer of spaced parallel weft strands, which is highly resistant to stretching since the strands contain no deviations or sinuosities characteristic of a woven structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sailcloth of Linville, wherein the at least two nonwoven outer fabric layers comprise parallel strands laid up at right angles, as taught by Doyle, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional sailcloth having a fabric structure known in the art to predictably provide high resistance to stretching due to the strands being inherently extensible. Note that such a structure for each outer fabric layer combination would appear to be within the scope of a nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material.
Regarding the claimed inner layers, Linville teaches two reinforcing layers of parallel strands aligned at angles, wherein the strands may comprise Kevlar. Additionally, Stein teaches a sailcloth of machine direction including a carrier layer, an intermediate layer with several plies of laid yarn as well as a finishing layer, with the yarns being bonded under pretensions with the carrier layers and the layers joined with each other, the intermediate layer including at least three yarn layers (Stein, Abstract). Stein teaches that the laid yarns extend in parallel strands at an angle of 55° to 70°, approximately 90° and 110° to 125° in relation to the longitudinal direction, and a parallel family of yarns extends in the machine direction (Id., paragraph 0016). Stein teaches that especially advantageous are further yarn layers, the yarns of which extending across a range of 20° to 40° and 140° to 160° in relation to the machine direction (Id., paragraph 0018). Stein teaches that an exemplary yarn orientation of 0°, 30°, 60°, 75°, 90°, 105°, 120°, and 150° (Id., paragraph 0050). Stein teaches that polyester or aramid yarns can be employed (Id., paragraph 0024). Stein teaches that for the substrate or carrier layer, woven fabric or sheet can be employed (Id., paragraph 0027), and that the finishing layer consists of a polyester sheet (Id., paragraph 0028). Stein teaches that the sailcloth is a laminate comprising the three layers which are bonded and pressed together (Id., paragraph 0029). Stein teaches an exemplary multi-layer sailcloth having a weight of 250 g/m2, and 6 yarn layers (Id., paragraph 0042). Stein teaches that the inventive arrangement of the reinforcing yarns causes the tensile strength of the cloth to increase, primarily transversely to the machine direction (Id., paragraph 0017). Stein teaches that reinforcing yarns laid or extending adjacent to each other yield a more than proportional expansion strength, that is the tensile strength of the cloth definitely increases in the extension direction of a yarn due to yarn layers having slightly deviating extension characteristics (Id., paragraph 0020). Stein teaches that the yarns are arranged at various angles, extending through 0° and 90° in relation to the longitudinal direction, as high strength is achieved in the longitudinal direction of the sail enabling the sails to be adjusted precisely as wind conditions demand (Id., paragraphs 0015-0021). Stein teaches that optimizing the expansion strength of the cloth transversely allows sails to be as light as possible (Id., paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sailcloth of the prior art combination, wherein the sailcloth comprises the three intermediate layer plies arranged at the claimed angle in a bed of glue, such as at angles of 0°, 30° and 90°, and wherein all the layers are bonded and pressed together, as taught by Stein, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional sailcloth having predictably increased tensile strength suitable for the intended application. Note that a bed or layer of glue would also appear to be within the scope of the claimed carrier matrix, and that Stein’s yarn layers are encompassed by the term “warp sheet.”
Regarding the claimed carrier matrix and laying the reinforcing filaments or yarn in an adhesive bed or bonding via thermal welding and/or pressure, as set forth above, it is unclear what structure is necessarily claimed. However, for purposes of examination, the carrier matrix is interpreted as comprising additional elements including an adhesive bed.
Linville teaches that an adhesive penetrates the one or more warps of strands to bond the various layers together (Lin, column 5 lines 1-43). Alternatively, Stein teaches that the sailcloth is a laminate comprising the three layers which are bonded and pressed together, wherein the yarns are placed into a bed or layer of glue which makes sure the yarns are fixed/secured the moment they are laid (Stein, paragraph 0029). Stein teaches that bonding of the individual layers may also be achieved when the finished sailcloth is subjected to a lamination process by means of which the individual layers are joined through the application of pressure and heat (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sailcloth of the prior art combination, wherein the layers are laid in an adhesive bed or are bonded solely by the application of pressure and heat, as taught by Lin and Stein, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional sailcloth which is laminated in a manner known in the sailcloth art to be functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for bonding layers of filaments or yarns.
Regarding the mass per unit area of the nonwoven fabric layers or the adhesive bed, Stein teaches an exemplary multi-layer sailcloth having a weight of 250 g/m2, and 6 yarn layers (Stein, paragraph 0042). Since the multi-layer sailcloth of Stein comprises similar layers of laid yarns, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the yarn layers comprise similar or identical weights, and that one of ordinary skill could determine a suitable layer weight based on the desired strength and properties of the resulting composite. Additionally, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the amount of adhesive can predictably vary, as increasing the amount of adhesive or glue further ensures bonding of the layers, while balancing the flexibility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sailcloth of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the mass per unit area of each of the nonwoven layers and the adhesive, such as within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Stein, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable weight for each of the layers based on a known and suitable weight for the composite sailcloth, and motivated by the desire of forming a conventional sailcloth having the desired weight and structure and adhesion suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, since the prior art combination teaches that the strands are desirably laid up at right angles, the filaments are aligned at 0 and 90.
Regarding claims 21-24, the prior art combination teaches that the outer nonwoven layers are each a layer of spaced parallel weft strands laid up on a layer of spaced parallel warp strands, wherein the strands are desirably comprised of synthetic fibers in the form of monofilaments, for example, polyester (Linville, column 4 lines 25-32; Doyle, column 1 line 64 to column 2 line 24). The prior art combination teaches that that the intermediate layers of yarns may comprise aramid yarns which are functionally equivalent to polyester yarns (Linville, column 4 lines 54-68; Stein, paragraph 0024), although aramid yarns have stretch resistant properties (Stein, paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sailcloth of the prior art combination, wherein the strands of the outer layers are filaments of polyester and the inner layers comprise aramid yarns, as suggested by Linville, Doyle and Stein, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional sailcloth based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art, based on the desired properties, such as stretch resistance, suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 29, note that the prior art combination relied on in the rejection does not require a woven scrim fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention differs from the nonwoven, warp-knit scrim of Doyle, where the warp-knit is crucial to hold the fabric together, but it does not form part of the inventive material. Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is unclear as to what the phrase “it does not form part of the inventive material” entails. Additionally, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the prior art, including Linville’s disclosure that first and second outer layer may comprise a film of dimensionally stable resin having high stretch resistance, a woven, a non-woven, warp-knit, a combination of at least two films, fabrics or both, or a reinforced laminated cloth having strands of a stretch resistant material.
Applicant argues that Stein could not easily scale down the inner layers, as there is a significant reduction in the overall achieved weight of Applicant’s sailcloth compared to the material of Stein. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant applies assumptions of the weights of the materials of the prior art, Applicant similarly applies assumptions to the claimed invention, including that a layered sailcloth of Stein, having an exemplary basis weight of 250 g/m2, is limited to only 6-layered sailcloths, and that the claimed invention is limited to 5 “layers.” The claimed invention is directed to a first and second nonwoven bonded-fiber fabric material, and at least three inner layers of reinforcement. Stein is relied on to teach that since the multi-layer sailcloth of Stein comprises similar layers of laid yarns, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the yarn layers comprise similar or identical weights, and that one of ordinary skill could determine a suitable layer weight based on the desired strength and properties of the resulting composite. Additionally, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the amount of adhesive can predictably vary, as increasing the amount of adhesive or glue further ensures bonding of the layers, while balancing the flexibility. Therefore, both the weight of the layers, including the outer layers, and the weight of the adhesive would be tailorable based on the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786