DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-10, 12-18 and 20-26 are pending in the application. Claims 11, 19 and 27 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 20 and 24, filed on 7/22/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 2 over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20-26 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “such as internal twists, crisscrossing of fibers and uneven fiber distribution.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “very flimsy and delicate.” The terms “very flimsy” and “delicate” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed spread fiber tape has been rendered indefinite by the use of these terms.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “oblique orientations in relation to a fabric portion's length direction.” It is unclear if or how “a fabric portion’s length direction” relates to the fabric portion claimed in lines 2-7 of the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the constituent tapes.” It is unclear what the word “constituent” refers to. Therefore, it is unclear if the tapes being claimed are the same as the tapes in claim 1, or a different set or subset of tapes.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “hexagon-like body.” The term “like” renders the claimed body indefinite as it is unclear what falls within the scope of “like” and what does not.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “Use of a fabric according to claim 1 for at least one of ballistic mitigation and safety products.” However, this claim is indefinite because it does not recite any process steps.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “hexagon-like body.” The term “like” renders the claimed body indefinite as it is unclear what falls within the scope of “like” and what does not. Claims 25-26 are rejected because they depend on claim 24.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “low areal weight.” The term “low” is a relative term which render the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed fabric portion has been rendered indefinite by the use of this term. Claims 25-26 are rejected because they depend on claim 24.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “Use of a fabric according to claim 24 for at least one of ballistic mitigation and safety products.” However, this claim is indefinite because it does not recite any process steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7-8, Nishimura ‘278 teaches a reinforcing woven fabric that uses as weaving threads flat and substantially non-twisted multifilaments of reinforcing fibers (tapes as claimed), as warps and wefts (see Abstract). Nishimura ‘278 teaches use of the woven fabrics as bias cut woven fabrics whose fiber directions are +45° and -45°, such as woven fabrics ‘42’ and ‘43’ in FIG. 13 (a first set of tapes of the plurality of tapes and a second set of tapes of the plurality of tapes, wherein the first set of tapes are arranged in an intersecting and overlapping fashion with the second set of tapes, as claimed) (see col. 12 lines 8-19 and col. 26 lines 25-34).
With regard to the claimed limitation “wherein the fabric portion has a width, a thickness and a length, wherein the width extends from a first side of the fabric portion to a second side of the fabric portion, the first side being parallel to the second side along a length direction of the fabric portion, said fabric portion further comprising at least a middle part between the first side and the second side,” and “wherein the plurality of tapes are further arranged in a common, single sheet in straight or folded-straight form,” the examiner notes that FIGS. 8-13 of Nishimura ‘278 show illustrations of a fabric portion having a thickness and a length, as well as a width with parallel sides, and tapes arranged in a common single sheet in straight form, as claimed.
With regard to the claimed limitations “wherein each tape of the plurality of tapes is a spread fiber tape that has fibers that are uniformly spread from parent tows and a substantially uniform thickness, wherein inherent internal crisscrossing or migration of fibers are eliminated and the fibers of each spread fiber tape are parallel to each other and arranged linearly along a length of the tape wherein the tape is free from criss-crossing fibers and twists and free from inherent tension variations arising from defects such as internal twists, crisscrossing of filaments and uneven fiber distribution, wherein more fibers are exposed relative to the parent tow and very flimsy and delicate compared to the parent tow, wherein the thickness of the tape is up to at least 50% lower than the parent tow, wherein the width of the tape is up to at least 50% greater than the parent tow, and wherein the number of exposed fibers is up to at least 50% greater than that of the parent tow,” the examiner notes that these limitations include product-by-process limitations. The final product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. For instance, with regard to spread fibers tapes, Nishimura ‘278 teaches that the reinforcing woven fabric uses as weaving threads flat and substantially non-twisted multifilaments of reinforcing fibers, as warps and wefts (see Abstract). The examiner also notes that, as illustrated in FIG. 12 of Nishimura ‘278, flat reinforcing filamentary yarns ‘36’ and ‘37’ comprise fibers that are uniformly arranged in linear and parallel fashion in the length directions of the yarns and with uniform thickness (see also col. 26 lines 8-17, col. 1 lines 6-10, and col. 7 lines 19-20). Further, because a flat weaving thread having a great hook drop value is used and the crimp is suppressed extremely small, a great covering factor can be achieved (col. 8 lines 53-58). As the hook drop value becomes greater, a multifilament of reinforcing fiber is opened and widened more easily (col. 5 lines 41-42). In a process for manufacturing a reinforcing filamentary yarn, a plurality of bundles of reinforcing fibers are widened to a predetermined width by a roller, etc., and they are kept in a flat condition as they are, or the formation thereof may be maintained by a sizing agent, etc., so that they are not returned into an original condition (col. 9 lines 61-67).
Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
With regard to the claimed limitations: “a plurality of connection points or connection areas to structurally link the first set of tapes and the second set of tapes, wherein the connection points or connection areas are formed at only the overlapping tape areas with a connection feature connecting at least some of the overlapping tapes of the first and second set together, wherein the connection points or connection areas are arranged to maintain the fabric portion flat, wherein the connection points or connection areas are absent from non-overlapping tape lengths, wherein the connection points or connection areas are provided as discrete points or areas and are discontinuous between two overlapping areas of tapes though applied to the same fabric portion, and; wherein the discrete connection points or connection areas resist formation of openings or gaps in the fabric portion,” Nishimura ‘278 teaches that the handling property can be greatly improved by bonding specified portions of the woven fabric, that is, bonding warps and wefts to each other at positions of their intersections (see col. 10 lines 12-27 and 46-51, and col. 26 lines 8-17). Each weaving thread is maintained at a flat condition in the formation of the woven fabric (col. 7 lines 1-20 and col. 4 lines 22-27). The covering factor of the woven fabric can range from 95% to 100% (see col. 9 lines 1-50 and col. 11 lines 28-32). The examiner notes that when the cover factor of the fabric is lower than 100%, the woven fabric would comprise spaces between the tapes, and thus bonding the warps and wefts to each other at positions of their intersections would result in discrete, discontinuous bonding points or areas as claimed.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected that bonding the warps and wefts to each other at positions of their intersections in a woven fabric with a cover factor of less than 100% would result in discrete, discontinuous bonding points or areas at the bonded fiber intersections, as woven fabrics with a cover factor of less than 100% would comprise spaces between the tapes (e.g., see col. 9 lines 44-50, and col. 11 lines 28-32 of Nishimura ‘278).
Nishimura ‘278 does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each tape of the plurality of tapes is provided in a discrete length, the discrete length of each tape being longer than the width of the fabric and shorter than the length of the fabric.
However, Bruyere teaches a bias fabric in the form of a cloth of length ‘L’ and of finite width ‘l’, constructed by interlaced yarns 2 (a first set of tapes) and yarns 3 (a second set of tapes) extending in respective directions ‘D’ and ‘d’ that are oblique relative to the length ‘L’ (see Abstract, Figs. 1 and 16). Bruyere teaches that, according to a characteristic, the yarns ‘2’ and ‘3’ are of finite length and are interrupted on at least one selvage such as 1a relative to the other such as 1b (see col. 6 lines 25-35 and Fig. 1). The examiner also notes that, in Bruyere’s Fig. 1, it can be seen that yarns ‘2’ and ‘3’ have a length longer than the width (l) of the fabric and shorter than the length ‘L’ of the fabric (see col. 6 lines 3-9 and 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the yarns in the reinforcing woven fabric of Nishimura ‘278 with finite lengths longer than the width of the fabric and shorter than the length of the fabric in order to obtain a bias fabric that can be of indefinite length, wherein individual yarns may generally have a ±45° bias and may also be naturally capable of being subjected to other angular variations, and wherein such fabrics are useful in industrial and reinforcement applications, as taught by Bruyere (see Abstract, cols. 1-2 lines 66-4, col. 6 lines 1-30 and col. 13 lines 51-57).
Regarding claim 4, Bruyere teaches that in practice it is often desirable to be able to have fabrics in which individual yarns extend on the bias, with such bias, although generally ±45° bias, naturally being capable of being subjected to angular variations that facilitate angular spreading of one of the categories of yarns (cols. 1-2 lines 66-4).
Regarding claims 6, 9-10, 12 and 17, Nishimura ‘278 teaches that as the method for bonding a woven fabric, a method for arranging a polymer yarn having a low melting point along a weaving thread of a flat reinforcing filamentary yarn, and after weaving, melting the polymer yarn by a heater, thereby bonding the intersection of weaving threads by the polymer, is simple and preferred (col. 10 lines 18-27 and layers 42 and 43 in FIG. 13). In order to bond further surely, a method for disposing the low-melting point polymer yarn at a central portion of the flat reinforcing filamentary yarn in the width direction of the reinforcing filamentary yarn and bonding using it is more preferred (same par.). The examiner notes that use of the polymer yarn having a low melting point would meet the claimed limitations regarding spot gluing, fusing and spot welding, as recited in claims 6 and 17. As noted above, when the cover factor of the fabric is lower than 100%, the woven fabric would comprise spaces between the tapes, and thus bonding the warps and wefts to each other at positions of their intersections would result in discrete, discontinuous connection points or areas, which would be arranged in lines as claimed in claims 9-12 (note col. 11 lines 28-32 and layers 42 and 43 in FIG. 13).
The examiner also notes that claims 6 and 17 include product-by-process limitations. The final product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claims 13-14, Bruyere teaches that the cloth can optionally have yarns such as ‘2’ in which every other yarn forms a loop ‘4’ at one of the selvages, such as 1b (see col. 6 lines 28-35 and FIG. 1). Bruyere also teaches that the yarns ‘2’ and ‘3’ are flat in shape and have no twist over their entire length (see col. 6 lines 57-63; also see col. 4 lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 16, Bruyere teaches means capable of binding the selvages of the resulting cloth by means of cords, ribbons, tapes, etc. or indeed to coat them in any suitable material (see col. 10 lines 38-48). It should be understood that such coating could also be achieved by previously depositing a layer of adhesive substance, e.g. at the inlets to the means, for the purpose of holding the ends of the yarns and subsequently of being unstuck from the conveyor belts so as to constitute coatings for the selvages (same par.). In the alternative, Sager is applied below.
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura ‘278 teaches a case where the multifilament of reinforcing fiber is a carbon fiber filamentary yarn (col. 7 lines 39-44). The handling property can be greatly improved by bonding specified portions of the woven fabric, that is, bonding warps and wefts to each other at positions of their intersections (see col. 10 lines 12-27 and 46-51). Nishimura ‘278 also teaches (with regard to lamination of reinforcing substrates) use of a reinforcing woven fabric substrate according to the invention in which the warps and the wefts are bonded at their intersections by an adhesive (for example, a low-melting point polymer as aforementioned) as an outermost layer (col. 12 lines 59-67). Bruyere teaches use of a coated material applied during manufacture so as to hold captive either the cut ends of the yarns and/or loops (column 6 lines 31-35, and col. 10 lines 39-46).
Regarding claim 20, the examiner notes that Nishimura ‘278 shows examples of multifilament yarns having uniform thicknesses and a uniform distribution of filaments within the yarns (see FIGS. 8-13). In addition, Bruyere teaches using single-strand or single-filament yarns or multifilament yarns of regular, uniform, and/or heterogeneous shape, and even from optionally single-strand yarns or roving that is naturally flat or that has been shaped to become flat (see col. 4 lines 10-19). The examiner also notes that the plurality of the fabric portions would be capable of being laminated as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, the examiner notes that the lengths of tapes in the fabrics of Bruyere can be seen to form elongated hexagonal-like bodies as claimed (e.g., in FIG. 1 or FIG. 16, elongated hexagonal-like bodies can be seen, including portions of parallel edges 1a and 1b and the oblique yarns that extend therefrom that intersect at the middle of the fabric with respect to the width direction of the fabric).
Regarding claims 22-23, Nishimura ‘278 teaches industrial applications such as fiber-reinforced plastics having high reliability, for instance structural materials for aircraft (see columns 32-33 lines 64-10). Nishimura ‘278 also teaches laminated structures wherein the arrangement directions of the fiber layers include 0°/90° and ±45° (see columns 11-12 lines 60-19).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nishimura ‘541 (US Patent No. 4,786,541).
Regarding claims 4-5, Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere remains as applied above.
In the event that Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere is found not to teach said first and second oblique orientations being non-perpendicular to each other, thereby forming either an acute or obtuse angle between said first and second orientations (as recited in claim 4), Nishimura ‘541 is applied below.
Nishimura ‘541 teaches a fiber material for reinforcing plastics prepared by laminating at least one first fiber substrate and at least one second fiber substrate, wherein in the second fiber substrate the reinforcing fibers extend in two directions including directions having angles of ±(25-65) degrees relative to the longitudinal direction (see Abstract, col. 3 lines 18-34, and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the fiber angles in the fabric of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere with two directions having angles of ±(25-65) degrees relative to the longitudinal direction of the fabric in order to obtain reinforcing fiber material that can give quasi-isotropic physical properties to large fiber reinforced plastics (FRP) in the direction within its surface, as taught by Nishimura ‘541 (see Abstract, col. 2 lines 5-50, col. 3 lines 18-34 and 51-58, and Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, further in view of Anahara (US Patent No. 5,173,358).
Regarding claim 15, Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere remains as applied above.
Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere does not explicitly disclose wherein foldings of at least two folded tapes are arranged at a distance from the sides of the fabric and form a slit opening in the fabric portion in at least one of a length or a width direction of the fabric portion, wherein the slit is an opening through the fabric portion between the folded tapes.
However, Anahara teaches a three-dimensional fabric that effectively weaves a solid member into the fabric (Abstract). The examiner notes that Anahara teaches wherein a bias thread layer is formed by arranging bias threads B so that they are folded back, as shown in FIGS. 12-13 (also see column 10 lines 2-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fabric of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere with openings that are created between folded tapes in the fabric in order to effectively weave a solid member into the fabric, as suggested by Anahara (see Abstract, column 10 lines 2-12, and FIGS. 12-13).
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sager (US Patent No. 3,663,330).
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere remains as applied above.
In the event that Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere is found not to explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is further provided with a surface coating on at least one of its faces through at least some of the constituent tapes, said surface coating making the fabric portion's face adherent, Sager is applied below.
Sager teaches making a multi-ply web product (Abstract). Sager teaches that a mandrel may be heated to activate thermoplastic or thermosetting adhesives applied to one or more of the plies to bond the plies into a unitary web product (col. 2 lines 42-47). The respective plies may be of nonwoven or of woven material, or of non-woven material with longitudinal or transverse thread reinforcement, etc. (col. 4 lines 37-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fabric of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere with an adhesive surface coating in order to obtain multi-ply woven products, as suggested by Sager (see Abstract, col. 4 lines 37-39, and col. 4 lines 37-39).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235), further in view of Fukunishi et al. (US Patent No. 5,238,995).
Regarding claim 24, Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere remains similarly as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere does not explicitly disclose wherein each tape of the plurality of tapes is a highly drawn polymeric tape, wherein each highly drawn polymeric tape is drawn from a parent tape to a thickness lower than the thickness of the parent tape such that the highly drawn polymeric tape is translucent or transparent and comprising at least one of straightened, parallel, or uniformly distributed constituent molecular chains that during the drawing process slid past each other laterally and become well-distributed and oriented in the length direction of the highly drawn polymeric tape.
However, Fukunishi teaches high-performance polyvinyl alcohol fibers having excellent resistances to hot water and dry heat as well as excellent strength and elastic modulus (Abstract). The highly drawn fiber will be of high strength and elastic modulus, and further of significantly improved hot water resistance thanks to high orientation and crystallization of the PVA molecules and, in particular, to introduction of the hydrophobic groups into the PVA molecules (col. 4 lines 8-13). The examiner also notes that Fukunishi teaches obtaining a uniform and transparent gel fiber (col. 5 lines 33-42). The examiner notes that the claimed limitation “uniformly distributed constituent molecular chains that during the drawing process slid past each other laterally and become well-distributed and oriented in the length direction of the highly drawn polymeric tape” would be met by Fukunishi’s teaching of obtaining high orientation and crystallization of the PVA molecules. In this regard, the molecular chains would slide laterally past each other as the randomly entangled molecular chains in amorphous regions are oriented to form greater amounts of crystalline regions comprising aligned molecular chains.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided transparent, uniformly distributed, highly drawn high-performance polyvinyl alcohol comprising high orientation and crystallization of PVA molecules as the material of the tapes of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere in order to provide tapes having excellent hot water resistance and high strength and elastic modulus, particularly for use in the reinforcement of rubbers or plastics that will be subjected to wet heat treatment, as suggested by Fukunishi (see col. 1 lines 5-11, col. 5 lines 33-42, and cols. 6-7 lines 66-8; also see Abstract and col. 4 lines 8-13). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected that drawing a fiber to impart high orientation and crystallization would result in an increase of molecular chains aligned in the direction of drawing (i.e., axially, in the length direction of the fiber), wherein chains that are initially randomly entangled in amorphous regions of the fibers would slide laterally past each other to some degree in order for more crystalline regions comprising oriented molecular chains to be formed.
Regarding claims 25-26, Nishimura ‘278 teaches industrial applications such as fiber-reinforced plastics having high reliability, for instance structural materials for aircraft (see columns 32-33 lines 64-10). Nishimura ‘278 also teaches laminated structures wherein the arrangement directions of the fiber layers include 0°/90° and ±45° (see columns 11-12 lines 60-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if the base claim is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if claim 2 is then rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Nishimura ‘278 (US Patent No. 5,783,278) in view of by Bruyere (US Patent No. 6,494,235) does not teach, in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 2 (if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph), a fabric of bias type comprising a fabric portion formed of a plurality of tapes, wherein each tape of the plurality of tapes is a spread fiber tape, wherein inherent internal crisscrossing or migration of fibers are eliminated in the spread fiber tape, wherein the fibers of the spread fiber tape are arranged free from internal twists and crisscrossing of the fibers and free from inherent tension variations arising from internal twists, crisscrossing of fibers and uneven fiber distribution, and wherein the spread fiber tapes have a thickness that is lower than the thickness of their parent fiber tows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant contends that Nishimura '278 does not disclose the processing conditions for a fiber tow spreading method that would enable or achieve the spread fiber tapes in a form of the presently claimed spread fiber tapes or the fabric portion recited in Claim 1.
Regarding this contention, as applied above to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, the limitation “such as internal twists, crisscrossing of fibers and uneven fiber distribution” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. In addition, the terms “very flimsy” and “delicate” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The claimed spread fiber tape has been rendered indefinite by the use of these terms. The limitation “a fabric portion’s length direction in line 28 of claim 1 also renders the claim indefinite. Applicant’s arguments are not convincing with respect to spread fibers tapes as claimed in claim 1. However, the examiner notes that applicant’s arguments with respect to spread fiber tapes would be convincing if the above 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph issues are addressed in claim 1, and if the claim 2 limitation “wherein the spread fiber tapes have a thickness that is lower than the thickness of their parent fiber tows” is incorporated into claim 1.
Applicant contends the following (with respect to claim 24): “Fukunishi, however, appears silent regarding any fabric portion. Thus, Fukunishi appears unrelated to the other cited art or the claimed invention.”
Regarding this contention, Nishimura ‘278 ‘s reinforcing woven fabric is applied above as meeting the claimed “fabric portion” limitation. Nishimura ‘278 teaches that the reinforcing woven fabric is used as a substrate for reinforcing composite materials (Abstract). Similarly, Fukunishi discloses fibers that are particularly suited for reinforcement of composite materials (col. 1, lines 9-12). Applicant’s invention is directed to textiles comprising spread fiber tapes and highly drawn polymeric tapes for use in applications such as composite materials (Abstract). It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fukunishi is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as Fukunishi relates to fibers that are used in composite materials, and Fukunishi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as Fukunishi relates to highly drawn fibers that are useful in reinforcing composite materials.
Applicant contends the following: (1) ‘Fukunishi, however, apparently fails to disclose, as recited in Claim 24, "each highly drawn polymeric tape is drawn from a parent tape to a thickness lower than the thickness of the parent tape such that the highly drawn polymeric tape is translucent or transparent,”’ and (2) ‘As understood by one skilled in the art, Fukunishi does not indicate that drawing of fibres, either as such or as arranged in a tape form, is performed to the extent of making the fibres or its arrangement in tape form, translucent or transparent through straightened, parallel, or uniformly distributed constituent molecular chains. Fukunishi fails to disclose the claimed "polymeric tape is drawn from a parent tape."’
Regarding these contentions, Nishimura ‘278 is also applied above as teaching tapes as claimed. Fukunishi teaches highly drawn fibers with improved properties thanks to high orientation and crystallization of PVA molecules in the highly drawn fibers (col. 4, lines 8-13). The examiner notes that highly drawn tapes would have a thickness lower than the thickness of the parent fiber. Fukunishi further teaches that a uniform and transparent gel fiber is obtained (col. 5, lines 33-42). As applied above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been motivated to provide, as the material of the tapes of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere, highly drawn, high-performance polyvinyl alcohol that is uniform and transparent and comprises high orientation and crystallization of PVA molecules. It is unclear from applicant’s arguments why the combination of Nishimura ‘278 in view of Bruyere and Fukunishi would not meet the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789