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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 15-18 are allowed.
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.
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, 14 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hansen et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0181590).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen et al. teaches a three-dimensional woven structure a plurality of yarns in a particular direction (i.e. shute direction) and a plurality of second yarns (warp elastomeric yarns) in another direction interwoven with the plurality of first yarns wherein at least some of the second yarns include braided yarns wherein the 3D woven structure is a preform (fabric stacked and shaped) [0061]. However, the recitation in the claims that the preform is “for use in aeronautical or aerospace load bearing structure is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Hansen et al. discloses 3D woven structure as presently claimed, it is clear that the 3D woven structure of Hansen et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. use in aeronautical or aerospace load bearing structure, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. It is noted that Hansen et al. teach the 3D woven structure is load bearing and has use in automotive items and it also would have been obvious to use them in aerospace structures as well.
Regarding claims 14, Hansen et al. are silent regarding the claimed shape of the preform. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any shape, including the presently claimed shaped to suit the intended end use and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 39, Hansen et al. teaches the braided yarns comprise metal fiber [0049].
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.
Claims 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0181590) in view of Dapsalmon (PG Pub. 2015/0118425).
Regarding claim 40, Hansen et al. are silent regarding the claimed specific yarns. However, Dapsalmon teaches fabrics for protection including carbon fiber for reinforcement in combination with spandex or lycra. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the carbon fiber of Dapsalmon et al. in Hansen et al. in order to improve reinforcement and strength properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2012/0148788 teaches a multidirectional reinforced tape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues because Hansen teaches use of elastomeric yarns, such yarns are not load bearing and that Hansen does not teach load bearing structures. Applicant argues Hansen teaches elasticity and deformability and therefore would be unsuitable for aeronautical and aerospace uses. Hansen teaches the use of his fabric includes, but is not limited to ballistic cloth such as body armor, composites and automobile parts. Hansen teaches inclusion of metal fiber which clearly provides strength and stiffness and is load bearing. Further, as evidenced by CN 105019085, spandex fiber is in fact known and used in aerospace applications. Therefore, Hansen does in fact teach the present limitation of claim 1.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights