DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed on April 28, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 2-4 and 9-10 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 5-8, and 11-20 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that "t0" in line 2 should read --to--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 11-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackmore (US 2006/0119011)1 in view of Shin (KR 101689289)2 and Graham (US 2004/0219845).
With respect to claims 1, 13-15, and 18, Blackmore teaches curing concrete mixtures utilizing electrically conductive components placed within the concrete, such as conductive wire or fibers, in a circuit path and using electrical current to create resistive or impedance heating to control the cure of the concrete (paragraph [0003]). An electrical component subject of the invention is a rod, wire, or fiber containing carbon or graphite, such as carbon fibers woven into a braid, fabric, or tape (paragraph [0025]). Carbon fibers are electrically conductive and heatable without loss of material properties, have a low coefficient of thermal expansion and have high strength (paragraph [0025]).
Blackmore teaches the carbon fibers may be impregnated with resin (paragraph [0068]), but is silent as to the carbon fiber comprising carbon and a carbon doping layer comprising a binder and carbon particles.
Shin teaches a heating coating yarn manufactured using a heating paste composition (paragraph [0001]). The heating paste comprises carbon nanotube particles, carbon nanoparticles, binder, a solvent, and a dispersant (paragraphs [0013], [0027]). The conductivity, workability, and physical properties are determined depending on the amount of conductive materials and binder used (paragraph [0008]). The coated fibers has the advantage of not causing a change in material resistance or damage to the coating film even when heated to a high temperature of about 300oC by increasing the heat resistance of the mixed binder (paragraph [0031]).
Since both Blackmore and Shin teach heating fabrics comprising carbon and resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers comprising a coating of binder and carbon particles as described by Shin in order to provide a woven heating fabric that does not have a change in material resistance or damage to the coated fibers even when heated to high temperatures.
Shin in view of Blackmore is silent as to the carbon based fibers having a fineness of 100 to 3,500 De.
Graham teaches a cement panel that is reinforced with a fabric made of carbon fibers (paragraph [0005]). In one embodiment the reinforcement fabric is a bidirectional fabric comprising warps and wefts (paragraph [0014]). The preferred denier range of the warp and weft fibers is 150 to 2000 (paragraph [0015]). The denier of the warp and weft yarns can be increased or decreased as preferred to meet the strength requirement of the finished cement panel (paragraph [0015]).
Since both Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach carbon based woven fabrics for use in cement panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the warp and weft of the woven fabric of Blackmore in view of Shin to have deniers within the range of 150 to 2000 in order to provide the desired strength to the finished cement panel.
Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the claimed invention but does not expressly teach the claimed far-infrared emissivity, simultaneously satisfying conditions (1) and (2), the claimed fiber dimensional change ratio, and the claimed thermal shrinking force. It is reasonable to presume that the above properties are inherent to Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham. Support for said presumption is found in that Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the same materials as the claimed invention and performs the same function.
With respect to the far-infrared emissivity, the instant specification at page 7, line 28 through page 8, line 2 describes the far-infrared emissivity as necessary in order to uniformly cure the concrete. Similarly, Blackmore teaches that the use of carbon facilitates the uniform heating of the concrete (Blackmore; paragraph [0079]). Since Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach a woven carbon based fabric capable of uniformly curing concrete similar to the claimed invention, it is reasonable to presume the prior art fabric exhibits the claimed far-infrared emissivity.
With respect to the fiber dimensional change ratio, the instant specification at page 6, lines 13-18 describes that if the carbon-based fiber has a high fiber dimensional change ratio there may be a problem that the change in physical properties increases after heat generation, and there may be a problem that durability is reduced. Similarly, as described above, the coated fibers of Shin has the advantage of not causing a change in material resistance or damage to the coating film even when heated to a high temperature of about 300oC by increasing the heat resistance of the mixed binder (Shin; paragraph [0031]). Blackmore also acknowledges that carbon fibers are electrically conductive and heatable without loss of material properties, have a low coefficient of thermal expansion and have high strength (Blackmore; paragraph [0025]). Since Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach a woven carbon based fiber where the fibers do not have a change in material resistance and are not damaged when heating to high temperatures, it is reasonable to presume the prior art fabric exhibits the claimed fiber dimensional change ratio.
With respect to the thermal stress, the instant specification at page 6, lines 13-18 describes that if the carbon-based fiber has a high thermal stress there may be a problem that the change in physical properties increases after heat generation, and there may be a problem that durability is reduced. Similarly, as described above, the coated fibers of Shin has the advantage of not causing a change in material resistance or damage to the coating film even when heated to a high temperature of about 300oC by increasing the heat resistance of the mixed binder (Shin; paragraph [0031]). Blackmore also acknowledges that carbon fibers are electrically conductive and heatable without loss of material properties, have a low coefficient of thermal expansion and have high strength (Blackmore; paragraph [0025]). Since Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach a woven carbon based fiber where the fibers do not have a change in material resistance and are not damaged when heating to high temperatures, it is reasonable to presume the prior art fabric exhibits the claimed thermal stress.
With respect to the resistance, the instant specification at page 6, lines 13-18 describes that if the carbon-based fiber has a low resistance there may be a problem that the concrete is not cured uniformly to a desired level, and if it is high there may be a problem that heat cannot be generated to a desired level when current is applied. Similarly, Blackmore teaches that the use of carbon facilitates the uniform heating of the concrete (Blackmore; paragraph [0079]) and that carbon fibers are electrically conductive and heatable without loss of material properties, have a low coefficient of thermal expansion and have high strength (Blackmore; paragraph [0025]).. Additionally, Shin teaches the coated fibers have high heat resistance, small change in resistance according to temperature, and low specific resistance (Shin; paragraph [0020]). An exemplary fiber of Shin has a resistance of 75 kΩ/m (Shin; paragraph [0052]), which is within the claimed range in claim 5.
With respect to the relationship between condition (1) and (2), the instant specification at page 6, lines 26-29 describes that if the conditions (1) and (2) are too high there may be a problem that the change in physical properties increases after heat generation, there may be a problem that durability is reduced, and there may be a problem that the concrete is not uniformly cured to a desired level. As discussed above with respect to the individual parameters, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach a carbon based woven fabric that uniformly cures concrete and comprises fibers that do not have significant change in material resistance or durability when heated to high temperatures. Therefore it is reasonable to presume the prior art fabric meets the required relationship between conditions (1) and (2).
As such the prior art is expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 5, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shin further teaches an exemplary fiber that has a resistance of 75 kΩ/m (paragraph [0052])
With respect to claims 6-8, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Blackmore further teaches that a piece of woven carbon fabric drawing 100 watts per foot at 5 volts and 20 Amps achieves a temperature of 130oF in 10 minutes (paragraph [0061]).
Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach that when 220V AC voltage is applied, a time for which a temperature of the heating fabric reaches 40oC or higher is 30 second to 5 minutes, a time for which a temperature of the heating fabric reaches 70oC or higher is 10 minutes to 50 minutes, and a temperature of the heating fabric is 80oC or higher after 1 hour. It is reasonable to presume that the heating times are inherent to Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham. Support for said presumption is found in that, as described above, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the materials and function of the claimed invention. Additionally, Blackmore teaches a heating rate similar to claim 7 at a lower voltage. The heating fabric of Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham is therefore expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 11, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach wherein the carbon based fibers have a Young’s Modulus of 15 to 40 g/d and an elongation of 10 to 30%. It is reasonable to presume that the heating times are inherent to Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham. Support for said presumption is found in that, as described above, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches the materials and function of the claimed invention. The heating fabric of Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham is therefore expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 12, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Blackmore further teaches use of an electrical connection which conveys electrical energy through an external power supply (paragraph [0070]).
With respect to claims 16-17, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above. Graham further teaches that only warp yarns or weft yarns of the reinforcement fabric may be made of carbon fibers and the corresponding weft or warp yarns are made of fibers such as polyester, polyamides, polyolefin, ceramic, nylon, fiberglass, basalt, and aramid (ground yarn) (paragraph [0017]). The warp and weft may also include alternating yarns made of carbon fiber and a second fiber (ground yarn) such as those listed above (paragraph [0017]). Because the cost of fibers can be relatively high, the use of more inexpensive yarns in combination with carbon yarns can help to decrease the overall cost of manufacture of the reinforcement fabric (paragraph [0017]). As described above, the warp and weft yarns are in the denier range of 150-2000 denier (paragraph [0015]).
The second yarn (ground yarn) denier range of Graham substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 17. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Graham, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach carbon fiber based fabrics for cement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second fiber (ground yarn) as described by Graham in order to decrease the overall cost of manufacture of the fabric.
With respect to claim 19, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above. Graham further teaches the warp and weft yarns are disposed at approximately 4 to 18 ends per inch (paragraph [0015]). The warp and weft yarns per inch can be increased or decreased as preferred in order to meet the strength requirement of the finished cement panel (paragraph [0015]).
Since both Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teach carbon based woven fabrics for use in cement panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the warp and weft of the woven fabric of Blackmore in view of Shin to have counts of 4 to 18 ends per inch in order to provide the desired strength to the finished cement panel.
With respect to claim 20, Blackmore in view of Shin and Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Blackmore further teaches the fiber circuits of the invention may be installed prior to concrete pour in a wall frame (paragraphs [0065]-[0066]). The concrete is then cured by using an electrical current to create resistive or impedance heating (paragraph [0003]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, and 11-20 of copending Application No. 17/787,978 (reference application)3. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to the instant claim 1, claim 1 of Song claims a heating fabric for curing inner wall concrete comprising: a carbon-based fiber that generates heat when current is applied and has a fineness of 100 to 3,500 De, wherein the carbon-based fiber satisfies the following conditions (1) and (2) at the same time, wherein the carbon-based fiber comprises: a fiber, and a carbon doping layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the fiber and comprising a binder and carbon particles fixed to the binder:
(a2 + b2)1/2/c ≤ 0.29,
|a x b|/c1/2 ≤ 1.8,
wherein a is a fiber dimensional change ratio (%) of the carbon-based fiber of -5% or more, b is a thermal shrinking force (N) of the carbon-based fiber of 5N or less, and c is a resistance (kΩ) of the carbon-based fiber; wherein the fiber dimensional change ratio is a ratio of changes in length of the fiber measured under the conditions of 100oC and 30 minutes according to KS K 0215 : 2012 (7.12.(1).A) standards, and the thermal shrinking force is measured under the conditions of 200oC and 120 seconds according to ASTM D 5591 : 2011 standards (Song; claim 1).
Song teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach wherein the carbon based fiber has a far-infrared emissivity of 70% or more at a wavelength of 5 to 20 µm. It is reasonable to presume that the far-infrared emissivity is inherent to Song. Support for said presumption is found in that, as described above, Song teaches the materials and function of the claimed invention. The heating fabric of Song is therefore expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
The recitation of “for curing outer wall concrete” has not been giving patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, the structural limitations of the claims are able to stand alone, and the intended use of the product does not impart any additional structure beyond that of a capability.
While the claim of Song is not specific to an outer wall concrete curing method, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the heating fabric would cure concrete regardless of its location in a building.
With respect to the instant claim 5, claim 5 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims wherein the resistance is 10 to 500 kΩ (Song; claim 5).
With respect to the instant claim 6, claim 6 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims wherein, when 220V AC voltage is applied, a time for which a temperature of heat generating fabric reaches 40oC or higher is 30 second to 5 minutes (Song; claim 6).
With respect to the instant claim 7, claim 7 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims wherein, when 220V AC voltage is applied, a time for which a temperature of heat generating fabric reaches 70oC or higher is 10 minutes to 50 minutes (Song; claim 7).
With respect to the instant claim 8, claim 8 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims wherein, when 220V AC voltage is applied, a temperature of the heat generating fabric is 80oC or higher after 1 hour (Song; claim 8).
With respect to the instant claim 11, claim 11 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims wherein the carbon-based fiber has a Young’s modulus of 15 to 40 g/d and an elongation of 10 to 30% (Song; claim 11).
With respect to the instant claim 12, claim 12 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims comprising at least one or more connection parts through which current flows from an outside (Song; claim 12).
With respect to the instant claim 13, claim 13 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 1 and further claims a warp yarn and a weft yarn, wherein the carbon-based fiber is comprised in any one or more of the warp yarn and the weft yarn (Song; claim 13).
With respect to the instant claim 14, claim 14 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 13 and further claims wherein the carbon-based fiber is disposed in one or more strands per inch in a disposition direction of at least any one of the warp yarn and the weft yarn (Song; claim 14).
With respect to the instant claim 15, claim 15 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 13 and further claims wherein the warp yarn and the weft yarn are disposed to be interwoven, or the weft yarns is disposed above or below the warp yarn (Song; claim 15).
With respect to the instant claim 16, claim 16 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 15 and further claims comprising a ground yarn provided to weave the warp yarn and the weft yarn (Song; claim 16).
With respect to the instant claim 17, claim 17 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 16 and further claims wherein the ground yarn has a fineness of 30 to 350 De (Song; claim 17).
With respect to the instant claim 18, claim 18 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 13 and further claims wherein the warp yarn and the weft yarn each independently have a fineness of 100 to 3,500 De (Song; claim 18).
With respect to the instant claim 19, claim 19 of Song claims all the limitations of claim 15 and further claims comprising 1 to 60 strands of the warp yarn per inch in a warp direction and 1 to 60 strands of the weft yarn per inch in a weft direction if the warp yarn and the weft yarn are disposed to be interwoven, and comprising 1 to 30 strands of the warp yarn per inch in a warp direction and 1 to 30 strands of the weft yarn per inch in the weft direction if the weft yarn is disposed above or below the warp yarn (Song; claim 19).
With respect to the instant claim 20, claim 20 of Song claims a method for curing inner wall concrete, comprising: fixing the heating fabric of curing inner wall concrete according to claim 1 to at least a portion of an inner wall concrete curing frame; pouring concrete into the inner wall concrete curing frame; and curing the poured concrete by applying an electric current to the heating fabric for curing inner wall concrete (Song; claim 20).
While the claim is not specific no an outer wall concrete curing method, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the heating fabric would cure concrete regardless of its location in a building.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to being enabling for the entire scope of the claim has been overcome by the amendments and arguments in the April 28, 2026 response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Machine translation used as reference
3 Hereinafter referred to as Song
Prosecution Insights