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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 9/8/2025. Claims 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Waas et al. (US 2016/0075061) fails to teach different reinforcing fibers in different areas of the composite and Examiner admits as such. The Applicant is mistaken. The Examiner never admit that Waas et al. fails to teach different fibers in different areas of the composite because Waas et al. does in fact teach the use of different reinforcing fibers in different areas of the composite.
Waas et al. teaches the knitting process may be utilized to form composite products “to modify properties of the knitted textile in different regions of the same unitary seamless knitted structure, whether by substituting different fibers or yarns or modifying the knitting or stitch pattern type, stich density, stich length, yarn tension, and the like.” See page 4, paragraph [0052]. Modifying “different fibers” in different areas to modify properties clearly implies the fiber may have a different composition. However, if there were any doubt about this, Waas et al. goes on to state “the knot reinforcement may incorporate different yarn materials, including distinct composition” and “the first knitted region and the second knitted region vary from one another by at least one property selected from the group consisting of:… yarn composition.” See page 4, paragraph [0056]. This unambiguously indicates the different fibers utilized indifferent areas of the knitted composite may have a distinct composition, i.e. be made of different materials. Thus, the teaching to use different fiber materials in different areas of the knitted composite is explicitly taught in Waas et al. so as to vary the properties of the composite as desired in those areas. This is a direct teaching to utilize different fiber materials in different areas.
Further, Fritze et al. also teaches the reinforcement fibers in knitted structures for composites, including with a thermoplastic matrix (See page 21, paragraph [0066]), may incorporate different fibers in different areas of the composite (See page 24, paragraphs [0073]-[0074], teaching “the type of yarn may be changed as the preform is knitted. For example, a portion of a preform may be knitted of yarn comprising para-aramid (e.g. Kevlar, Twaron) fiber while another portion of the preform may be knitted of yarn comprising wooly Nylon), such fibers comprising a wide variety of reinforcing fibers including aramids, such as are taught in Waas et al., but also including natural fibers, such as hemp and linen, and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (See pages 23-24, paragraphs [0071]-[0072]). Thus, Fritze et al. also unambiguously discloses knitting different yarn/fiber materials in different areas of the composite.
The Examiner has argued it would have been apparent known reinforcing fibers used in similar for knitting similar composites would have predictably been suitable for use as these reinforcing fibers when using methods for forming a knitted composite such as Waas et al. Doing so would have predictably formed desired composite products by known methods and using known materials. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc. 127 S. Ct 1727, 1739 (2007) (holding that “unit[ing] old elements with no change in their respective functions obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men”); See also In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”). Examiner has established that using different fibers in different areas of the knitted composite is known in order to vary the properties in those areas, and has also established that the fibers as claimed are known fibers utilized in the prior art for knitted products.
Thus, Examiner has argued it is obvious to utilize known fiber materials in knitting, e.g. quartz (taught in Bak et al., col. 4, lines 31-37), hemp, linen, and PET, to form known knitted products incorporating different fibers in different areas so as to achieve desired properties in the different areas. This is a clear motivation to arrive at Applicant’s invention as claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waas et al. (US 2016/0075061) in view of Bak et al. (US 5,792,555) and Fritze et al. (WO 2016/144971).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 12, Waas et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a product made of composite material, wherein the product comprising a matrix of a polymeric material reinforced with fibers (See Abstract and page 3, paragraph [0046]), wherein the process comprises the following steps:
making a knit in three dimensions and in a continuous piece by weft knitting, the knit constituting a dry preform corresponding to the shape of the product to be obtained, wherein the dry preform comprises at least two areas having different compositions by using different reinforcing fibers, i.e. in a first area and a second area of the dry preform that eventually forms the composite product (See page 3, paragraphs [0047]-[0049], wherein knitting, such as knitting with a weft knitting machine forms a dry fibrous unitary structure, i.e. a continuous piece, in various shapes as desired such that minimal additional manufacturing is required; this clearly implies weft knitted 3D preforms, i.e. making a weft knit, in the desired shape of the product; and see page 4, paragraph [0052] and page 4, paragraph [0056], wherein the weft knitting may use different reinforcing fibers/yarns in different areas, such as fibers/yarns having different compositions, i.e. different reinforcing material, so as to influence the physical properties in these different areas, such as the flexibility, i.e. using different reinforcing fiber materials in different area to provide different flexibility in each area in the product formed thereby). This clearly teaches using different types of fibers in different areas of the knit, such as in the dry knit, so as to take advantages of the different properties of the fibers in the different areas and curate properties of the composite to have different functionality in those areas, such as a distinct flexibility in the first and second area.
Waas et al. further teaches the dry preform may have a polymeric material of a lower melting point comingled with the reinforcing fiber, and teaches shaping by heating under pressure to reach at least the melting point temperature of the polymeric material without reaching the temperature of the melting point of the reinforcing material, and cooling to obtain the product (See page 5, paragraphs [0063]-[0065] and page 6, paragraph [0067], wherein the matrix may be a thermoplastic such as polypropylene comingled with the reinforcing fiber such as carbon or a para-aramid, i.e. a mixed yarn, wherein the preform is heated under pressure to melt the thermoplastic and consolidate, i.e. shape, such that it lock it the desired shape of the 3D knitted preform; note this “locking” implies cooling the melted thermoplastic).
Waas et al. does not provide explicit examples of the thermoplastic matrix for the yarns beyond polypropylene and is silent on the weight ratios, but does not imply any specific limitations for the thermoplastic matrix and teaches the ratio of matrix to reinforcement is freely controllable by the knitting process and clearly enables control of properties in the composite (See page 6, paragraph [0065]). Examiner submits the teachings of Waas et al. indicate any thermoplastic matrices and ratios known for similar knitting co-mingled knitting yarns (i.e. with reinforcement fibers and a lower melting point thermoplastic) would have predictably been suitable for the process of Waas et al.
As disclosed in Bak et al., it is well known in the art that similar knitting yarns as taught in Waas et al. having reinforcement (see Bak et al., col. 4, line 38, teaching reinforcement yarns largely similar to those disclosed in Waas et al.) and a lower melting point thermoplastic matrix for forming knitted 3D composites contain thermoplastics within the 55-85% range by weight and include thermoplastics for the co-mingled yarn such as polyether imide, polyamides, polyurethane, and polycarbonates, in addition to polypropylene (See, for example, Bak et al., Abstract, col. 3, line 42-51, col. 3, lines 13-52, and col. 6, lines 57-67, teaching hybrid yarns of thermoplastic and reinforcing material with up to 80% by weight thermoplastic matrix such as polyether imide, polyamides, polyurethane, and polycarbonates are useful for knitting machines and forming 3D composites, in addition to polypropylene).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize at least 80% by weight polymeric material such as polyether imide, polyamides, polyurethane, or polycarbonates in at least one area of the product because such weight percentages and matrices are known in the art for similar hybrid knitting yarns as alternatives to polypropylene in similar mixed yarns, such as in Waas et al. Thus, loadings of 55-85% would have predictably provided a suitable range for forming knitted 3D composite products from reinforcing fibers such as para-aramid and thermoplastic hybrid yarns, and polyether imide, polyamides, polyurethane, or polycarbonates would have predictably been a suitable alternative thermoplastic matrix to polypropylene in Waas et al. for such yarns so as to form a 3D knitted product with desired mechanical properties. Substituting one known matrix material for another in a similar structural context is routine optimization for a person having ordinary skill in the art.
As described above, Waas et al. explicitly teaches “the knit reinforcement piece may incorporate different yarn materials, including distinct compositions…. The different types of yarns used within a single knitted piece may affect the physical properties of knit reinforcement piece, including levels of…flexibility…in distinct areas.” See page 4, paragraph [0056]. Further, Waas et al. teaches “the first knitted region and the second knitted region may vary by at least one property selected from the group consisting of: … yarn composition.” See page 4, paragraph [0056]. Thus, Waas et al. clearly indicates using different reinforcing materials in different areas of the knitted product in order to provide different properties. It would have been apparent known reinforcing fibers used in similar for knitting similar composites would have predictably been suitable for use as the reinforcing fibers when using methods for forming knitted composite such as Waas et al. Doing so would have predictably formed desired composite products by known method and using known materials, and thus serves as a design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art when fabricating a desired product.
Bak et al. (US 5,792,555) specifically teaches quartz as one such known reinforcing fiber that it similar to glass (See col. 4, lines 31-37), a material taught in Waas et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize quartz fibers because they would have predictably been a suitable alternative to glass in knitting process for forming composites. Although none of the other claimed reinforcing fibers are taught explicitly in Waas et al. and Bak et al., such fibers are well-known reinforcing fiber known in the art for similar processes to form similar composites. Bak et al. expressly discloses that reinforcement fibers may include a wide variety of reinforcing filament provided they melt at temperatures at least 10 C below the matrix melting temperatures (See col. 5, lines 13-16), thus suggesting known reinforcement fibers used in knitting and capable of withstanding heat at least 10 C over the melting temperature of the matrix are predicably suitable as reinforcement fibers coupled with a thermoplastic matrix fiber in dry knitting processes.
Fritze et al. teaches the reinforcement fibers in knitted structures for composites, including with a thermoplastic matrix (See page 21, paragraph [0066]), and using knitting processes that may incorporate different fibers in different areas of the composite (See page 24, paragraphs [0073]-[0074]), may comprise a wide variety of reinforcing fibers including aramids, such as are taught in Waas et al., but also including natural fibers, such as hemp and linen, and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (See pages 23-24, paragraphs [0071]-[0072]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize quartz, hemp, linen, or PET as reinforcing fibers in the process of Waas et al. Such fibers are known reinforcement fibers used in similar knitted process to form similar composites and thus would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as reinforcing fibers and as long as the corresponding matrix has a sufficiency low melting point than the melting or degradation temperature of the fiber, as provided by Bak et al. Examiner submits at least some thermoplastic polyurethanes, polyamide, and polycarbonates would have had suitably low melting temperature to utilize within composites utilizing hemp, linen, PET, or quartz as two of the different reinforcing fibers for different areas of the composite. Use of such different fibers are for the same reasons as provided in Waas et al., and also reinforced in Fritze et al., so as to provided different properties, such as different flexibility, in different areas of the composite. Examiner notes Waas et al. specifically teaches polymeric reinforcing fibers, and hemp and linen would have useful to provide biodegradable reinforcements when desired. Each of hemp, linen, and PET would have predictably been more flexible, but less strong than quartz, thus enabling tailored properties in the composite as provided by Waas et al.
The prior art clearly indicates a variety of reinforcing fibers and matrices may be utilized in knitting to form desired products and Applicant appears to be doing nothing more than using known reinforcing fibers in known methods, with known thermoplastic matrices, to form known products without providing any evidence the specific reinforcement fibers and matrix combinations provide any unexpected advantages. This is not inventive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746