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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on December 11, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-14 are canceled; claims 15-22 are withdrawn; claim 23 is amended; resulting in claims 23-28 pending for examination.
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 23-28 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 claim 23, the newly added limitation reciting “wherein the textile insert is free of reinforcing fibers” is considered new matter that is not supported by the original specification.
In looking to paragraph [0013] of the as-filed specification, the textile insert is said to not be restricted to specific materials, wherein the textile insert can be produced, for example, from natural or synthetic fibers. Preferably, the textile insert has or is formed of polyester fibers [0013]. It is noted that polyester fibers could be considered reinforcing fibers depending upon the context in which they are used, as they may serve to increase the tensile strength, modulus, or durability of a part. Nevertheless, the generic disclosure of the textile insert being formed of polyester fibers is not sufficient to provide support for the claimed limitation excluding the presence of any reinforcing fiber in the textile insert.
Aside from the broad disclosure of the textile insert being produced from natural or synthetic fibers, with polyester fibers listed as an example, the specification does not provide any additional disclosure with respect to the type of fibers used in the textile insert.
Regarding claim 23, the newly added limitation reciting “wherein the textile insert is fixed on the fiber reinforcement via adhesive or knitting” is considered new matter that is not supported by the original specification.
Although paragraph [0022] of the as-filed specification discloses that the textile insert may be fixed to the semi-finished fiber product (i.e., to the fiber reinforcement), for example by an adhesive or stitching, there is no disclosure of fixing the textile insert on the fiber reinforcement by knitting. In order to overcome this rejection, the Applicant could consider amending the above limitation to recite --wherein the textile insert is fixed on the fiber reinforcement via adhesive or stitching--, consistent with the disclosure in paragraph [0022].
Regarding claims 24-28, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 23.
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 23-28 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 claim 23, the newly added limitation reciting “wherein the textile insert is free of reinforcing fibers” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “reinforcing fibers” are not clearly defined.
In looking to the as-filed specification at paragraph [0013], the textile insert is said to be not restricted to specific materials and can be produced, for example, from natural or synthetic fibers, such as polyester fibers. In addition to the textile insert, the article includes at least one layer of reinforcing fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, or aramid fibers [0011]. The layer of reinforcing fibers is understood to correspond to the claimed fiber reinforcement.
It is not clear, however, exactly what distinguishes a “reinforcing fiber” from any other type of fiber. The common definition of the term “reinforcing” is to strengthen by adding extra support or material (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinforcing), such that regardless of the type of fibers used to form the textile insert, the fibers could be considered reinforcing fibers in that they strengthen the fiber-reinforced plastic component by adding extra material thereto. As explained in the written description rejection above, even the polyester fibers disclosed in paragraph [0013] of the instant specification as preferable for use in the textile insert could be considered “reinforcing fibers” in that they can increase the tensile strength, modulus, or durability of the component.
Absent further clarification from the Applicant, a textile insert made of any fibers other than the conventional high tensile strength fibers (i.e., carbon fiber, glass fiber, or aramid fiber) disclosed as “reinforcing fibers” in paragraph [0011] of the specification is interpreted to satisfy the aforementioned limitation requiring that the textile insert is free of reinforcing fibers.
Regarding claims 24-28, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 23.
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.
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 23, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (EP 2664445, machine translation previously provided) in view of Rumrich (DE 202008012433, cited on IDS, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 23, Engelhardt et al. teaches a multilayer composite structure (10; fiber-reinforced plastic component) comprising a first thermoplastic layer (1), a first fiber layer (2), a second thermoplastic layer (3), a second fiber layer (4), a third thermoplastic layer (5), a third fiber layer (5), a fourth thermoplastic layer (7), and optionally one or more further thermoplastic layers and/or further fiber layers underneath ([0038], Figs. 2-3). Engelhardt et al. teaches that the fiber layers are separated from each other by thermoplastic material, but are also saturated with and embedded in the plastic, where the first, second, and third thermoplastic layers can consist of the same thermoplastic material, thus forming a homogeneous plastic matrix (matrix material) ([0007], [0025], [0037]).
Engelhardt et al. teaches that the thermoplastic layers of the multilayer composite structure may be translucent, preferably transparent, and either clear or colored, while one or more of the fiber layers closest to the outer surface of the composite structure is also formed of translucent or transparent fiber material, such as glass or plastic fiber layers ([0013]-[0015], [0039]). A further fiber layer located beneath the one or more transparent fiber layers can be opaque such that by forming the near-surface thermoplastic and fiber layers as translucent or transparent, an optical depth effect can be achieved where the opaque fiber layer is visible through the transparent layers ([0015]-[0017]). The opaque fibers of the deeper fiber layers may be formed of carbon fibers, basalt fibers, metal fibers, glass fibers, plastic fibers, or natural fibers [0039].
Therefore, in the case where the first and second thermoplastic layers (1, 3) and the first fiber layer (2) are transparent or translucent and the second fiber layer (4) is opaque, the first fiber layer corresponds to the claimed textile insert, while the second fiber layer comprising carbon, metal, or glass fibers corresponds to the claimed fiber reinforcement. The first fiber layer may be made of transparent or translucent colored plastic fibers, such that the first fiber layer is free of high tensile strength reinforcing fibers. The second fiber layer is visible under portions of the first fiber layer, and both of the first and second fiber layers are embedded in the matrix material formed by the thermoplastic layers. In the final composite structure, the first fiber layer (2) is fixed on the second fiber layer (4) via the second thermoplastic layer (3), such that the second thermoplastic layer serves as a hot-melt adhesive that joins the first and second fiber layers, thus corresponding to the claimed adhesive.
Although Engelhardt et al. further teaches that one or more of the thermoplastic layers and/or fiber layers may be colored ([0015]), the reference does not expressly teach that the first fiber layer (textile insert) has a decoration, such that the second fiber layer is visible under portions of the first fiber layer not containing the decoration.
However, in the analogous art of fiber-reinforced composites, Rumrich teaches a molded part (F) comprising a fiber fabric (1) in the form of a carbon fiber mat, where a motif (2; decoration) consisting of lettering and graphic elements is printed, sprayed, painted, or otherwise applied on the outwardly visible side of the fiber fabric ([0008]-[0009], [0022], Fig. 1). The printed fiber fabric is embedded in a resin (3) via an RTM process, where a layer (4) of resin is formed on the upper side of the fiber fabric to protect the motif from damage [0022]. Similar to Engelhardt et al., Rumrich teaches that the matrix resin may be colorless and transparent or may include colored particles, where the motif remains visible on the upper side of the molded part in both cases ([0012], [0023]-[0024], Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer composite structure taught by Engelhardt et al. by providing a decoration in the form of a motif on the visible surface of the first fabric layer, as suggested by Rumrich, in order to impart a desired aesthetic appearance to the composite structure, for example, by providing decorations in the form of images or logos. Given that Engelhardt et al. teaches that the opaque fiber layers located beneath the one or more near-surface transparent fiber layers are visible through the upper transparent layers ([0015]-[0017]), the opaque fiber reinforcement is visible under portions of the transparent textile insert not containing the decoration.
Regarding claim 24, Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 above, and Engelhardt et al. further teaches that one or more of the fiber layers may be a knitted fabric ([0008], [0025]). Therefore, Engelhardt et al. teaches that the first fiber layer (2; textile insert) may be a knitted material.
Regarding claim 26, Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 above. As noted above, Engelhardt et al. teaches that the translucent or transparent fiber layer (textile insert) may also be colored [0015].
Regarding claim 28, Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 above. As noted above, Engelhardt et al. teaches that the first fiber layer (2; textile insert) is disposed on a side of the second fiber layer (4; fiber reinforcement) that faces a visible surface (S10) of the multilayer composite structure ([0038], Figs. 2-3).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (EP 2664445, machine translation previously provided) in view of Rumrich (DE 202008012433, cited on IDS, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2018/0370096, previously cited).
Regarding claim 25, Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 above. Although Engelhardt et al. teaches that the fiber layers can be formed by fabrics with different areal densities or different weave patterns in order to adapt the optical or mechanical properties of the component ([0018], [0039]), the combination of references does not expressly teach a basis weight of the textile insert.
However, in the analogous art of fiber-reinforced composites, Fuchs et al. teaches a plastic molded part (3) comprising a decorative film (2) joined to a base body (1), where the base body comprises at least one sheet material ply of a fabric, a scrim, a mat, a non-woven material, a knitted fabric, or the like embedded in a thermoplastic matrix ([0030], [0056], [0190], Fig. 3). Similar to Engelhardt et al., Fuchs et al. teaches that different fiber materials and different types of sheet material plies can be freely combined with each other depending on the application case, where the at least one sheet material ply has an areal weight in the range of from 5 g/m2 to 3000 g/m2, preferably in 100 g/m2 to 900 g/m2 ([0065]-[0066]), which overlaps the range of claim 25. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber-reinforced plastic composite of Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich by setting an areal weight of the textile insert in a dry state within the claimed range, as taught by Fuchs et al., in order to achieve the desired balance of mechanical properties such as flexibility or rigidity, durability, weight, etc., required for a particular application of the component.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (EP 2664445, machine translation previously provided) in view of Rumrich (DE 202008012433, cited on IDS, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Ferlay et al. (US 2017/0350142, previously cited).
Regarding claim 27, Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 above. It is noted that the limitation in claim 27 reciting “wherein the textile insert is printed by latex printing” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. In looking to paragraph [0016] of the as-filed specification, the textile insert is said to be printed by latex printing, wherein a latex ink is used and applied. The term “latex printing” does not appear to impart any additional structure aside from specifying the type of material that is applied to the textile insert. Therefore, the product-by-process limitation of claim 27 is interpreted as requiring that the textile insert is printed with a latex material (e.g., latex ink or coating).
As explained above with respect to claim 23, although Engelhardt et al. does not expressly teach that the textile insert has a decoration, Rumrich teaches a fiber fabric layer (1) having a motif (2; decoration) consisting of lettering and graphic elements which is printed, sprayed, painted, or otherwise applied on the outwardly visible side of the fiber fabric ([0008]-[0009], [0022], Fig. 1). Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that the textile insert is printed with a latex material.
However, in the analogous art of fiber-reinforced composites, Ferlay et al. teaches a composite floor tile or panel comprising a wear layer (1), a decorative layer (2), and a sublayer (4), where the decorative layer is in the form of a non-woven textile sheet (3; textile insert) connected to a reinforcing frame (5; fiber reinforcement) ([0002], [0038], Fig. 1). Ferlay et al. teaches that at least one face of the non-woven textile sheet has a decoration formed by printing with ink, such as by means of an inkjet printing method ([0038]-[0039]). Ferlay et al. further teaches that the ink used to form the decoration can include a latex water-based ink, where water-based solvent-free inks are preferred because they do not emit volatile organic compounds ([0006], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fiber-reinforced plastic component of Engelhardt et al. in view of Rumrich by utilizing a latex-based ink to form the decoration on the textile insert, as suggested by Ferlay et al., given that such water-based latex inks have an advantage of not emitting volatile organic compounds which are harmful to the environment.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is moot in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 23 removing the phrase “non-fiber-reinforcing”.
However, in light of the amendments to claim 23, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-5 of the remarks filed December 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues first that the outermost fiber layer (2) of Engelhardt does not reasonably correspond to the textile insert because it is not free of reinforcing fibers, and second that the outermost fiber layer (2) is not fixed on the fiber reinforcement via adhesive or knitting, as Engelhardt is silent in this respect.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the first argument, as explained in the indefiniteness rejections above, the metes and bounds of the limitation requiring that the textile insert is “free of reinforcing fibers” are not adequately defined, as it is not clear exactly what distinguishes a reinforcing fiber from any other type of fiber. Absent any further clarification from the Applicant, the textile insert being free of reinforcing fibers is interpreted to mean that the textile insert does not include any carbon fibers, glass fibers, or aramid fibers (i.e., high tensile strength fibers). Given that the first fiber layer (2) taught by Engelhardt et al. can be made of colored or metallized plastic fibers ([0039]), the first fiber layer is considered to be free of reinforcing fibers, thus meeting the claimed limitation as interpreted above.
As explained in paragraph 37 of the previous office action, Engelhardt et al. further teaches that by combining different fiber layers, which differ in terms of the fiber material, roving thickness, areal density, color, and/or arrangement of continuous fibers, the optical and/or mechanical properties of the article can be adapted to the requirements of a particular application thereof [0039]. Based on the disclosure above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Engelhardt et al. provides for embodiments in which the different fiber layers are formed of different fiber materials for the purpose of imparting different optical and/or mechanical properties, such as where the lower fiber layers (4, 6) serve as reinforcing layers in order to achieve the desired mechanical properties, while the upper fiber layer (2) does not serve as a reinforcing layer but rather exists to impart certain decorative or optical effects to the composite structure. The Applicant’s argument that the fiber layer (2) of Engelhardt is a fiber reinforcement layer just like the other fiber layers (4, 6) is therefore not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s second argument that Engelhardt is silent to the first fiber layer (2; textile insert) being fixed to the second fiber layer (4; fiber reinforcement) via adhesive or knitting, as explained in the prior art rejections above, the second thermoplastic layer (3) arranged between the first and second fiber layers (2, 4) acts as a hot-melt adhesive that joins the two fiber layers. In particular, Engelhardt et al. explains that the method for producing the composite structure involves heating the multi-layer structure having the fiber layers alternately arranged between the thermoplastic layers to at least the melting temperature of the thermoplastic layers ([0025], [0041]), such that the thermoplastic material adheres the adjacent fiber layers to one another upon melting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Humpenöder et al. (WO 2013/127419) teaches a multi-layer fiber-reinforced plastic component comprising outer cover layers (1), fiber layers (2, 2’), and damping layers (1’) arranged between each pair of fiber layers (2, 2’) all embedded in a thermoplastic or thermoset matrix system ([0033], [0079]-[0080], [0087], Figs. 1-2)
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785