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 .
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntz, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0107596 in view of Horibe et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0236686 and Poeppel et al, EP3112111A1.
Kuntz discloses a semi-finished textile product. See paragraph 0002. Kunz teaches a textile substrate to which are bonded a plurality of carbon fiber bundles. The fiber bundles comprise carbon fibers bundles arranged in parallel with a fiber orientation direction of the fiber bundles. See paragraph 0006 and 0007. Kuntz teaches selecting a binder pattern which partially fixes the textile substrate to the carbon fiber bundles in order to provide a material having extensibility and spacing the carbon fiber bundles so that the fabric is able to be draped and formed into complex three dimensional shapes. See paragraphs 0003, 0008 and 0038-0039. The areas without binder are more deformable or extensible then those areas with binder. The textile substrate in Kuntz is called the fixing structure and corresponds to the claimed fabric comprising one or more thermoplastic resins. The fixing structure can be a fusible thermoplastic nonwoven textile. The combination of the carbon fiber bundles and the fixing structure can be formed into laminates and molded and shaped articles. With regard to particular shapes, such as tubular or a bag, it would have been obvious to have formed the combination into any shape which would be useful in a particular application.
Kuntz differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly disclose that the material would have the claimed fabric Elongation set forth in claim 1 or tensile load as set forth in claim 15, and does not teach the particularly claimed gaps, carbon fiber placement and binder placement, as well as the claimed size of the tape.
However, since Kuntz teaches selecting the binder pattern and carbon fiber placement depending on the desired shaping of the final product so that the fabric is highly drapable and capable of being shaped into complex shapes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the placement of the carbon fiber bundles and the placement of the binder which produced a product having the desired elongation, drapability and ability to be formed into complex shapes through the process of routine experimentation, and to have selected the size of the tape depending on the size of the material to be formed from the tape.
Kuntz differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed weight of the carbon fiber bundles absent the fabric or that the underlying fabric substrate is a knitted fabric, but instead teaches a nonwoven substrate as the fabric.
Horibe discloses a structure comprising a warp knitted fabric to which are bonded a plurality of parallel carbon fiber bundles. The warp knitted fabric can include a binder to bond the carbon fiber bundles to the knitted fabric. See paragraph 0072-0074. The carbon fiber bundles include 12,000-50,000 filaments and have a tensile strength of 4 GPa or higher, a tensile modulus of 220-450 GPa and a drape value of 4-22. See paragraph 0024. The warp knit comprises chain stitches which would be regular. See paragraph 0029-0039. There are gaps present between the carbon fiber bundles to allow flow paths for a matrix resin. See paragraph 0043. Horibe teaches selecting the knitting density to provide the desired conformability, alignment, mechanical properties, and resin penetration. See paragraph 0044. The knitted fabric can be formed from synthetic yarns such as thermoplastic fibers. See paragraph 0058-0059. The carbon fiber bundles have a maximum movable distance of 0.5-10 mm. The weight of the carbon fiber bundles is 190-800 gsm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a basis weight as taught by Horibe and to have used a knitted fabric as taught by Horibe in view of its art recognized suitability for this intended purpose in the art.
With regard to the limitation that the fiber bundles are continuously bonded at both ends of the carbon fiber bundle group, Kuntz does not clearly teach bonding the ends.
However, Poeppel teaches a fiber tape comprising carbon fiber bundles. Poeppel teaches that it is important that the carbon fiber bundles are bonded so that the ends do not extend and that therefore the surface of the structure is smooth. See paragraph 0006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the fully bonded areas so that any ends are bonded and so that the final product has a smooth surface as taught by Poeppel. Further, with regard to the particular bonding patterns as claimed, it would have been obvious to have selected the amount and placement of the binder as taught by Kuntz in order to provide a structure having sufficient integrity and flexibility.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there the references do not teach a knitted fabric having regularity. However, any knitted fabric would have a pattern and thus would have the property of regularity.
Applicant argues that to replace the nonwoven of Kuntz with the knitted fabric of Horibe would only have been obvious using impermissible hindsight and that the incorporation of the carbon fiber bundles in Horibe is a fundamental design principle of Horibe.
However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Kuntz already teaches a structure wherein carbon fiber bundles are selectively bonded to a textile support. Horibe teaches a structure wherein a knitted fabric is used as a support for carbon fiber bundles. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that knit fabrics necessarily follow a pattern and are flexible and have inherent stretch and that they do not require additional binders or mechanical treatments to hold the knit together, since the interlooping of the yarns provides the connections. Therefore, since Horibe already teaches employing a knit fabric as a support for carbon fiber bundles, one of ordinary skill in the would have had a reasonable expectation that a knitted fabric could also be used as a support in the structure of Kuntz, without the use of impermissible hindsight. To combine the teachings of the two references would not require dismantling the structure of Horibe or bodily incorporating the entire structure of Horibe into the structure of Kuntz, but rather would involve a recognition that knitted fabrics could have been successfully used as a fabric support, instead of the nonwoven of Kuntz, and would provide certain benefits in terms of easy reproducibility and inherent stretch, as well as not requiring additional steps to bond the fabric itself, either mechanically or chemically.
With regard to Poeppel, Applicant argues that the structure of Poeppel wraps entire tapes/layers rather than just the ends and does not address bundle group structure.
However, Poeppel teaches wrapping so that ends of fibers do not mar the smoothness of the structure. This teaching is relevant to the structure of Kuntz and provides a reason to also wrap the ends of the fiber bundles to provide a smooth surface. Additionally, the instant claims do not preclude wrapping or otherwise encasing the fiber bundles at the ends.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789