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. 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 1, 3-7, 9-16 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitation "The size of the rovings" in lines 19-20 and 21-22 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0335750.
Adams discloses a cross laid scrim suitable for forming composite materials. The scrim comprises a plurality of layers of unidirectional multifilament bundles which are equated with the claimed rovings, (see paragraph 0033, 0034, 0040) wherein the bundles are spaced apart from each other in each layer to form a gappy structure and wherein the bundles in each layer are parallel to other bundles in that layer and at a different, (non-parallel), angle relative to bundles in other layers. See figure 1. Adams teaches selecting the orientation or angle of each successive layer in order to provide reinforcement in particular directions. See paragraphs 0016 -0018, 0041, 0067.
Adams differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the particularly claimed spacing or gaps of each layer relative to the other layers.
However, since Adams teaches selectively placing the bundles to provide spaces within each layer and selecting orientation the respective layers to provide angular reinforcement, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular spacing of the bundles within each layer and relative to the other layers which provided the optimum strength to the composite material while maintaining the gappy structure to allow for full impregnation of the composite material. Therefore, while Adams does not teach that the gaps are larger than the size of the bundles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected suitable spacing to allow for full impregnation of the composite material.
With regard to the limitation that the distance between the rovings provides for crimps in the roving, (wherein crimps refers to the undulations produced by one set of spaced unidirectional rovings overlying another set of spaced unidirectional rovings which are oriented in a different direction than the first set of spaced unidirectional rovings), since Adams teaches forming spaced sets of unidirectional bundles or tapes, and then placing another set of spaced unidirectional tapes extending in a different direction over the first set, the same structure which produces the claimed crimps is present in Adams and therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the claimed crimps are necessarily present in Adams and would provide channels as claimed.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0335750 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ritti et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0116198.
Adams discloses a composite material as set forth above.
Adams differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose impregnating the structure with a slurry of ceramic particles to form a prepreg or a molded article.
However, Ritti teaches a method of providing a composite material comprising the steps of providing a fibrous reinforcement, placing the fibrous reinforcement in a mold, injection a slurry of ceramic particles under pressure into the mold, removing excess liquid, and forming a prepreg from the molded structure. See paragraphs 0018-0026. The fibrous reinforcement can be a laid fabric. See paragraph 0054.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed the particular gappy scrim of Adams as the laid scrim in Ritti in view of the teaching of Adams that the gappy scrim provides tailorable impregnation and reinforcement to a composite material.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Adams does not disclose the third and fourth plurality of rovings.
However, Adams does teach a plurality of layers and two or more layers, (See paragraph 0057), which at least renders obvious the use of three or four layers.
Applicant argues that Adams does not teach the claimed spacing and does not teach the crimps.
However, since Adams provides the spacing to provide for the infiltration of resin and since the crimps are formed by providing the spacing which is present in Adams, it is reasonable to expect that the crimps would also necessarily be present in Adams.
Applicant argues that Adams does not recognize or solve the problem solved by Applicant. However, it is not necessary that the prior art be seeking to solve the same problem. Additionally, Adams does provide the spacing in order to allow for fuller impregnation of a resin into the layered structure.
Applicant argues that in Adams the gaps refer to gaps between monofilaments in an individual piece of unitape. However, Adams teaches removing fiber tows, (not individual monofilaments), to the gaps. See paragraph 0057. The unitapes of Adams are made up of a plurality of the tows or fiber bundles, wherein the fiber bundles themselves are separated by gaps. See claim 1 of Adams.
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
Prosecution Insights