DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 5, 6, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015).
As to claim 1, Pa teaches a method of manufacturing a polymer composite having an embedded functionality, the method including providing a dry non-conductive fiber fabric (page 34, Section 3.3.4, S-glass woven fabrics) having a nominal weight from approximately 271 g/square meters (8 oz/square yard converts to 271 g/square meter). Pa further teaches selecting a paste having viscosity below 600 Pa-s (Table 2.3, 80000 cP converts to 80 Pa s), the paste being a conductive paste and/or a sensing paste (page 22, silver). Pa teaches applying the selected paste on the dry non-conductive fiber fabric micro-dispensing (pages 24-25) inherently making a printed functionality. Pa appears to teach a single layer in some embodiments (Section 3.3.4), but teaches a laminate including multiple layers in other embodiments (See Fig. 3.13, 12 layers) and providing multiple layers in a laminate would be a simple duplication of parts to provide a thicker/stronger substrate. Pa teaches obtaining a polymer composite from said laminate (Section 3.3.4, “cured in an autoclave”).
As to claim 5 and 12, Pa’s 8 oz/square yard (converts to 271 g/square meter) woven S-glass fabrics meets all three claims. As to claim 6, Pa teaches 80 Pa-s (Table 2.3, 80000 cP converts to 80 Pa s). As to claim 10, Pa teaches a DuPont CB028 ink (Table 2.3) which inherently contains an epoxy. Pa teaches in Section 3.3.4 that the “final printed fabrics were heated”, which would inherently provide a thermal curing process to the binder in Pa. As to claim 11, Pa teaches attaching to an electronic component (Fig. 3.3, see HFSS model and enlarged U-shaped portion in enlarged inset). As to claim 14, Pa teaches (Section 3.3.4) forming a laminate comprising the printed dry non-conductive fiber fabric and prepregs, and applying vacuum to the stack and curing (“vacuum bagged and cured”) which meets in-situ polymerization.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015) in view of Sato (US 20100065316). Pa teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 2 and 4, Pa teaches a woven textile (Section 3.3.4), but is silent to the claimed fibers yarns (instant claim 2) and a plain weave of the claimed nominal weight (instant claim 4).
Sato teaches glass-fiber yarns in a plain weave ([0048]) having a 3-16 micron filament diameter ([0021]) that overlaps with the claimed 4-24 microns. While Sato does not specifically teach the number of filaments in each yarn, in light of the fabric having a thickness of 200 microns or less ([0021]) and the structure of the fabric (figures show a maximum thickness of two overlapping yarns), each yarn would have a diameter of 100 microns or less, and therefore obviously contain a number of filaments falling within the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Sato yarns and fabric into Pa because Pa teaches/suggests a woven fiberglass fabric (Fig. 3.7) and Sato provides a woven fabric containing glass fibers for supporting a printed circuit within the scope of the Pa teaching/suggestion. Alternatively, one would have recognized that the Sato yarns and fabric would have been a recognized and obvious interchangeable substitute for supporting printed circuits in Pa. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success and the results would be predictable because Sato already demonstrates that the Sato woven material is suitable for supporting a printed circuit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015) in view of Chopra (CA 2852341). Pa teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 7, Pa teaches a silver (metallic) conductive paste and/or a sensing paste (page 22, silver), but is silent to the other claimed features.
Chopra teaches a silver conductive material which has an average particle size ([0016], 0.5 to 15 microns) and amount ([0019], 50-95 wt.%) which overlaps the claimed ranges, a binder ([0015], polyvinylbutyral terpolymer), and an organic solvent ([0015], glycol ether).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Chopra ink into Pa because Pa teaches/suggests a silver ink applied by screen printing (page 22) and Chopra teaches a screen printable silver ink within the scope of the Pa teaching/suggestion. There was a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similarity between the inks already taught by Pa and the additional ink shown by Chopra.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015) in view of Walsh (US 5,210,499). Pa teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 8, Pa is silent to a carbon paste, a conductive polymer paste, or a magnetite-based paste.
However, Walsh teaches a sensor formed from an electrically conductive polymer such as conductive ink (6:12-13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Walsh ink into Pa as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the silver ink already taught by Pa. The substituted component (conductive ink) and its purpose (providing an electrical path in a composite) were known, and the result of the substitution (use of one conductive ink in place of another) would have been predictable.
Claim 1, 5, 6, 8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US 5,210,499) in view of Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015).
As to claim 1, Walsh teaches providing dry-non-conductive woven fabrics (11:8-14), applying an electrically conductive polymer ink (5:64-6:15) to the woven fabric, forming a laminate stack comprising dry non-conductive woven fabrics (13:1-5), and resin transfer molding the laminate stack to obtain a composite (11:49-68).
Walsh is silent to the nominal weight of the woven fabric and the paste viscosity applied by microdispensing.
Pa teaches a method of manufacturing a polymer composite having an embedded functionality, the method including providing a dry non-conductive fiber fabric (page 34, Section 3.3.4, S-glass woven fabrics) having a nominal weight from approximately 271 g/square meters (8 oz/square yard converts to 271 g/square meter). Pa further teaches selecting a paste having viscosity below 600 Pa-s (Table 2.3, 80000 cP converts to 80 Pa s), the paste being a conductive paste and/or a sensing paste (page 22, silver). Pa teaches applying the selected paste on the dry non-conductive fiber fabric by micro-dispensing (page pages 23-24) inherently making a printed functionality. Pa teaches obtaining a polymer composite from said laminate (Section 3.3.4, “cured in an autoclave”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Pa woven fabric and paste viscosity into Walsh because Walsh teaches/suggests a woven glass fabric (11:14) and a conductive ink (5:64-6:15), and Pa provides a woven glass fabric and a conductive ink and application process within the scope of the Walsh teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in view of the similarity of the two processes. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Pa woven fabric and paste viscosity into Walsh because one would have viewed the Pa woven glass fabric and conductive ink as an obvious interchangeable substitute for those already taught by Walsh. The substituted components (woven glass fabric, conductive ink) and their functions were known in the art and one could have substituted to provide the same predictable result already achieved by Walsh.
As to claim 5 and 12, Pa’s 8 oz/square yard (converts to 271 g/square meter) woven S-glass fabrics meets all three claims. As to claim 6, Pa teaches 80 Pa-s (Table 2.3, 80000 cP converts to 80 Pa s). As to claim 8, Walsh teaches an ink/paste containing a conductive polymer (6:12-13). As to claim 10, Pa teaches a DuPont CB028 ink (Table 2.3) which inherently contains an epoxy. Pa teaches in Section 3.3.4 that the “final printed fabrics were heated”, which would inherently provide a thermal curing process to the binder in Pa. As to claim 11, Walsh teaches attaching an electrical component (12:5), however, Pa also teaches attaching to an electronic component (Fig. 3.3, see HFSS model and enlarged U-shaped portion in enlarged inset). As to claim 14, Walsh teaches resin transfer molding (see rejection of claim 1 above), which is an infiltration process.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US 5,210,499) in view of Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015), and further in view of Sato (US 20100065316). Walsh and Pa teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 2 and 4, Walsh (11:14) and Pa teach (Section 3.3.4) each teach a woven textile, but are silent to the claimed fibers yarns (instant claim 2) and a plain weave of the claimed nominal weight (instant claim 4).
Sato teaches glass-fiber yarns in a plain weave ([0048]) having a 3-16 micron filament diameter ([0021]) that overlaps with the claimed 4-24 microns. While Sato does not specifically teach the number of filaments in each yarn, in light of the fabric having a thickness of 200 microns or less ([0021]) and the structure of the fabric (figures show a maximum thickness of two overlapping yarns), each yarn would have a diameter of 100 microns or less, and therefore obviously contain a number of filaments falling within the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Sato yarns and fabric into Walsh because Walsh teaches/suggests a woven fiberglass fabric (11:14) and Sato provides a woven fabric containing glass fibers for supporting a printed circuit within the scope of the Walsh teaching/suggestion. Alternatively, one would have recognized that the Sato yarns and fabric would have been a recognized and obvious interchangeable substitute for woven rovings in Walsh. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success and the results would be predictable because Sato already demonstrates that the Sato woven material is suitable for supporting a printed circuit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (US 5,210,499) in view of Pa (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015), and further in view of Chopra (CA 2852341). Walsh and Pa teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 7, Walsh teaches/suggests a conductive ink (6:13) and Pa teaches a silver (metallic) conductive paste and/or a sensing paste (page 22, silver), but the references are silent to the other claimed features.
Chopra teaches a silver conductive material which has an average particle size ([0016], 0.5 to 15 microns) and amount ([0019], 50-95 wt.%) which overlaps the claimed ranges, a binder ([0015], polyvinylbutyral terpolymer), and an organic solvent ([0015], glycol ether).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Chopra ink into Walsh because Walsh teaches/suggests a conductive ink (6:13) and Chopra provides a screen printable conductive silver ink within the scope of the Walsh teaching/suggestion. There was a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similarity between the inks already taught by Walsh and the additional ink shown by Chopra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot or not persuasive. Applicant argues that micro-dispensing is “merely mentioned in the last paragraph of page 22” and Pa does not form a laminate with the dry non-conductive fiber woven fabric having the printed functionality and at least one additional fabric (see Page 5). Applicant argues that Walsh provides “electrically conductive fibers 62” which are not the result of selecting a paste having the claimed viscosity. Applicant argues that Walsh merely teaches the sensor system is embedded into the resin and is silent to applying a paste to make a printed functionality.
Pa may “merely” mention micro-dispensing in the last paragraph of page 22, but in a part not discussed by Applicant’s arguments, Pa spends part of page 24 and most of page 25 discussing microdispensing. Clearly this is a technique that Pa envisions for depositing paste. The Examiner maintains the view expressed in the rejection that providing additional layers in a laminate would be obvious as a simple duplication of parts to provide a thicker/stronger substrate.
Regarding Walsh, it seems clear that Walsh teaches that “the grid-like, sensor may be constructed” from conductive-ink (6:13). Basically, any electrically conductive material can be used in Walsh (6:15-17). The Examiner’s interpretation is that the conductive threads mentioned in Applicant’s arguments are simply one non-limiting embodiment, and that conductive ink is also envisioned. Walsh also provides woven roving glass fiber, which would be non-conductive, and it is unclear why this glass fiber (a well known non-conductive material) would fail to meet a dry non-conductive fiber.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742