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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 5/21/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 1 has been amended to require each thermoplastic polymer yarn to comprise no less than 90 weight percent thermoplastic polymer. This amendment overcomes the previous rejection based upon Homma. Accordingly, the previous rejection is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1–12 remain pending and are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff (US 2015/0167208 A1) in view of Homma (US 2005/0085147 A1).
Bischoff teaches a method making a textile, wherein the textile is woven from reinforcing warp and weft yarns on a loom. Bischoff abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 24–25. The textile may further comprise binding warp and weft binding yarns, wherein the titer of the binding yarns is preferably less than 500 dtex and consist of thermoplastic polymer, such as polyamide. Id. ¶¶ 24–25, 50. The weight percentage of the binding yarn relative to the reinforcing yarns, and the textile as a whole, can be kept small. Id. ¶ 24. The woven fabric is heated to melt and/or cure the thermoplastic polymer upon exiting the loom. Id. ¶¶ 26, 57, 66–69.
Bischoff fails to teach the woven textile comprises 1–8 weight percent of thermoplastic binding yarn.
Homma teaches a process for forming a two-dimensional reinforcing woven fabric comprising warp and weft carbon fiber tows using a loom, wherein auxiliary, nylon-based yarns are woven along with the carbon fibers in the warp direction to be melted to bond the fibers of the fabric. Homma abstract, ¶¶ 21, 30, 31, 98, 100–104, 115–118, Figs. 1, 2. The woven fabric is then impregnated with a matrix polymer to form a prepreg composite material. Id. ¶ 33. The auxiliary, nylon-based yarn has a more preferred dtex of no more than 225 dtex. Id. ¶ 58. The nylon-based filaments constitute 0.5–10 weight percent of the woven fabric. Id. ¶ 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Homma for guidance as to suitable weight percentages for thermoplastic for a binding yarn in order to successfully practice the invention of Bischoff.
Claim 4 is rejected as the polyamide binding yarns of Bischoff are woven parallel to a reinforcing fiber tow. See Bischoff Fig. 5, ¶¶ 22, 53–54. Claim 5 is rejected as obvious as the use of powder-based polymer rather than liquid polymer to infiltrate the woven fabric to form a prepreg composite material is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan as polymers take different forms when they are being processed. Claim 6 is rejected as some of the binding yarns may comprise a sheath/core structure, wherein the sheath performs binding functions when heated, while the core provides stability and structure to the yarn and textile as formed such that these binding yarns can serve as reinforcing fiber tows. See id. ¶¶ 28–29.
Bischoff fails to teach the use of a directed heat source or a temperature to which the woven textile is to be heated. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as the heat source used in Homma is directed at the woven fabric to heat it to 160oC and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to look to Homma for guidance in order to successfully practice Bischoff. Homma ¶¶ 98, 118. Claim 12 is rejected as the woven textile of Bischoff a preform for a composite, wherein the preform is introduced to a resin matrix material in a bath to form a composite component. Bischoff ¶¶ 30, 70–71.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff in view of Homma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horibe (JP 2006-233341).
Bischoff fails to teach heating the woven reinforcing fiber fabric under tension as the fabric exits the loom to cause the polymeric material to melt.
Horibe teaches the formation of a two-dimensional woven reinforcing fiber fabric using a loom, wherein the fabric is formed by weaving yarns of tows of reinforcing fibers along with polyamide yarns wherein the formed fabric is heated as it is leaving the loom to melt the polyamide fibers or filaments. Horibe Abstract, Description, Figures 1, 2. The woven fabric is under tension while being heated 10, 16 using an infrared heater and exits the loom so that the fibers and yarns within the fabric are fixed without being touched. Id. Description, Figs. 1, 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have heated with fabric of Bischoff under tension motivated by the desire to keep the warp and weft fibers in place during manufacturing.
Claim 10 is rejected as it would have been obvious to cool the fabric to a temperature of no greater than 50oC because the fabric must be cooled to a temperature below the softening point of polyamide.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff and Homma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Couri (US 2007/0048491 A1).
Bischoff fails to teach heating the woven fiber fabric after carrying out a beat-up operation.
Couri teaches a method for making woven yarn carpet material, wherein a reed is used to beat-up the woven material to tighten the weave of warp and weft materials of the carpet. Couri abstract, ¶¶ 4, 12, 45.
One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have beaten up the warp and weft materials of the woven reinforcing fiber fabric of Bischoff to tighten the fabric’s weave.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1–12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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 D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights