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
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, claims 1-10 and 15-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to the claims 11-14 and 20, filed on 13 November 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 November 2025, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of applicants arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 November 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicants arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 November 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection have been made, as presented below. In that some of the applicants' arguments still pertain to the new grounds of rejection, they are addressed herein in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicants argue that the support of Jerome is not taught to be an antiadhesive liner as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the specification as filed does not provide an explicit definition for what would constitute and "antiadhesive liner", as to preclude said support of Jerome from being considered an antiadhesive liner. Furthermore, since the support of Jerome allows the intermediate product to be unwound for use ([Pg. 5: li. 1-2] of Jerome), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to behave as an antiadhesive liner.
Applicants also argue that Duqueine, Jerome, and Kawabe either alone or in combination fail to disclose a rectangular segment in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
With Regards to Claim 11: In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the cutting of Duqueine with the segmented continuous sheet (5) of Jerome in order to have --the segmented continuous sheet (5) cut over its entire width and thickness into rectangular segments, each of the rectangular segments in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining (2)--, from the stand-point of having single products of multi-axial planar composite producing having deformability properties ([0019] of Duqueine). (In the instant case, the combination of Jerome in view of Duqueine would result in the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (tape) and with an underlying discrete antiadhesive lining tape cut into a rectangular segment and a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining tape, respectively.)
With Regards to Claims 12 and 13: In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the composite material of Jerome with the discrete impregnated segmented ply disclosed by Duqueine in order to have --the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) being a rectangular segment in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)--, from the stand-point of having segments of pre-impregnated fibers totally independent of each other over their entire periphery while being organized in the plane and in space in such a way that they allow controlled movement and perfect positioning repeatability ([Pg. 4: li. 11-14] of Jerome). (In the instant case, the combination of Duqueine in view of Jerome would result in the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (tape) and with an underlying discrete antiadhesive lining tape cut into a rectangular segment and a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining tape, respectively.)
Therefore, in light of the applicants arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 November 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Examiner’s Notes
With Regards to Claims 11-14 and 20: While not previously stated on the record, in the previous office action mailed 14 July 2025, the limitations of claims 11-14 and 20 were all treated as product-by-process claims, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps were considered when assessing the patentability of the product-by-process claims over the prior art. Presently, claims 11-14 and 20 are still being treated as product-by-product claims as indicated below.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --the fibers-- in line 6, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the unidirectional fibers".
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --the continuous pre impregnated layer;-- in lines 8 to 9, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the continuous [[pre]] pre-impregnated layer (3);".
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --the fibers-- in line 17, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the unidirectional fibers".
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --fashion and the segmented continuous sheet (5)-- in line 22, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "fashion, and the segmented continuous sheet (5)".
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --the antiadhesive lining (2)-- in line 24, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the continuous antiadhesive lining (2)".
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --the fibers-- in line 5, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the unidirectional fibers".
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --the continuous pre impregnated layer;-- in lines 7 to 8, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the continuous [[pre]] pre-impregnated layer (3);".
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --the segmented continuous sheet (5)-- in line 13, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "a[[the]] segmented continuous sheet (5)".
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --the antiadhesive lining, thus forming a segmented discrete ply (8)-- in line 16, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the continuous antiadhesive lining (2), thus forming the[[a]] discrete impregnated segmented
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --the antiadhesive lining-- in line 17, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "a[[the]] discrete antiadhesive lining (2d)".
With Regards to Claim 12: Instant claim 12 recites --of unidirectional fibers disposed parallel to the longitudinal direction (D), the fibers-- in lines 23 to 24, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "of the unidirectional fibers disposed parallel to the longitudinal direction (D), the unidirectional fibers".
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation --the discrete segmented layer (3ds) comprises segments (4) cut over its entire thickness and disposed in staggered fashion and the-- in lines 27 to 28, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) comprises the segments (4) cut over its entire thickness and disposed in staggered fashion, and the".
With Regards to Claim 13: Claim 13 recites the limitation in lines 1 to 42 that:
A discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) obtained by a method comprising
a) supplying a continuous strip (15) composed of a continuous single-layer sheet (1) or a segmented continuous sheet (5) or a continuous antiadhesive lining (2),
b) depositing, on a face of the continuous strip (15) not including the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) or on the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) if the continuous strip (15) is formed by a continuous antiadhesive lining (2), a series of stacks each composed of N discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) stacked one on top of the other, in which N ∊ ℕ and N ≥ 1, to form the continuous strip of discrete stacks, in which each stack is deposited on the continuous strip by
supplying N discrete pre-impregnated plies comprising the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) which comprises unidirectional fibers embedded in a resin matrix, and
a discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a face of the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d),
depositing sequentially on the continuous strip (15) the N discrete pre-impregnated plies by removing the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) of each discrete pre-impregnated ply, before laying a new discrete pre-impregnated ply on the latter and optionally compacting the duly stacked discrete pre-impregnated plies, such that,
the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of a first discrete pre-impregnated ply (3d) is in contact with the continuous pre-impregnated layer (3) of the continuous strip (15) on which the first discrete pre-impregnated ply is laid,
the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of the second to Nth discrete pre-impregnated plies are in contact with the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of the adjacent discrete pre- impregnated plies with which they are in contact,
the Nth discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) has a free face on which is deposited the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d), thus forming the Nth discrete pre-impregnated ply; and
cutting the continuous strip (15) from the continuous strip of discrete stacks between two adjacent discrete stacks to obtain a series of discrete segmented multilayer mats (80) each comprising (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d);
characterized in that at least one discrete pre-impregnated ply is a discrete impregnated ply (8) of claim 12, wherein the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) is formed by the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds);
the discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) comprising (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of unidirectional fibers embedded in the resin matrix, the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers being stacked one on top of the other, and
the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to the free face of each of a first and an (N+1)th discrete pre-impregnated layer, sandwiching the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers,
characterized in that at least one of the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) are discrete segmented pre-impregnated layers (3ds) and in that at least one discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) has a triangular, trapezoidal or parallelogram geometry.
which appears to contain multiple typographical errors; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read:
A discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) obtained by a method comprising
a) supplying a continuous strip (15) composed of the[[a]] continuous single-layer sheet (1) or the[[a]] segmented continuous sheet (5) or the[[a]] continuous antiadhesive lining (2),
b) depositing, on a face of the continuous strip (15) not including the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) or on the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) if the continuous strip (15) is formed by the[[a]] continuous antiadhesive lining (2), a series of stacks each composed of N discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) stacked one on top of the other, in which N ∊ ℕ and N ≥ 1, to form a[[the]] continuous strip of discrete stacks, in which each stack is deposited on the continuous strip (15) by:
supplying N discrete pre-impregnated plies comprising the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) which comprises unidirectional fibers embedded in a resin matrix, and
the[[a]] discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a face of the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d),
depositing sequentially on the continuous strip (15) the N discrete pre-impregnated plies by removing the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) of each discrete pre-impregnated ply, before laying a new discrete pre-impregnated ply on the latter and optionally compacting the duly stacked discrete pre-impregnated plies, such that,
the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of a first discrete pre-impregnated ply
the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of the second to Nth discrete pre-impregnated plies are in contact with the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) of the adjacent discrete pre- impregnated plies with which they are in contact,
the Nth discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) has a free face on which is deposited the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d), thus forming the Nth discrete pre-impregnated ply; and
cutting the continuous strip (15) from the continuous strip of discrete stacks between two adjacent discrete stacks to obtain the mat
characterized in that at least one discrete pre-impregnated ply is the[[a]] discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) of claim 12, wherein the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) is formed by the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) of said discrete impregnated segmented ply (8);
the discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) comprising (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of the unidirectional fibers embedded in the resin matrix, the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) being stacked one on top of the other, and
the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to the free face of each of a first and an (N+1)th discrete pre-impregnated layer, sandwiching the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers,
characterized in that at least one of the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) are discrete segmented pre-impregnated layers (3ds), and in that at least one discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) has a triangular, trapezoidal or parallelogram geometry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation --the segmented continuous sheet (5) cut over its entire width and thickness into rectangular segments-- in lines 22 to 23. The instant specification is silent with respect to any "rectangular segments", recites "rectangular" with reference to "segments (4)" as having a rectangle shape (figures 1 to 2A, [0052], [0071], and [0106] of the filed specification), and recites "rectangular" with reference to the "segmented discrete ply (8)" ([0073] of the filed specification). Furthermore, the instant specification lacks written description support of the process of cutting the claimed "segmented continuous sheet (5)" over its entire width and thickness. Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the claimed limitation is deemed as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (NOTE: Figures 2 to 2A of the filed specification appear to be the closest support for the aforementioned limitation. However, the cut lines (ref. #6 and #7) are designated to have an angle of ±45°; which would not result in the "segment" being rectangular (is not a rectangle but is a parallelogram). As such, figures 2 to 2A would not provide support for the aforementioned limitation.)
Claims 11-14 and 20 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.
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites in lines 1 to 14 that:
A segmented continuous sheet (5) obtained by a method comprising,
supplying a continuous single-layer sheet (1) comprising,
a continuous pre-impregnated layer (3) composed of unidirectional fibers disposed parallel to a longitudinal direction (D), the fibers being embedded in a resin matrix; and
a continuous antiadhesive lining (2) applied to a face of the continuous pre impregnated laver; and
cutting the continuous single-layer sheet (1) so as to form, in the continuous pre-impregnated layer (3), segments (4) disposed in staggered fashion and thus form a continuous segmented pre-impregnated layer (3s), said cutting being performed in such a way as to leave the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) intact;
the segmented continuous sheet (5) comprising:
In the instant case, the claim is rendered indefinite because the limitations of the claim omit the necessary step that describes how, according the method, said "continuous single-layer sheet (1)" becomes said "segmented continuous sheet (5)"; and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention.
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites "rectangular segments" in line 23. The claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "rectangular segments" are the same as the "segments (4)" recited in line 11 of claim 11; or (2) that said "rectangular segments" are different from the "segments (4)" recited in line 11 of claim 11.
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation "the segmented continuous sheet (5)" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (In the instant case, the limitations of claim 12 omit the necessary structural limitation that the continuous single-layer sheet (1) becomes the segmented continuous sheet (5), appropriate correction is required as indicated below.)
Claims 13, 14, and 20, which depend upon claim 12, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites in lines 9 to 17 that:
cutting the continuous single-layer sheet (1) so as to form, in the continuous pre-impregnated layer (3), segments (4) disposed in staggered fashion and thus form a continuous segmented pre-impregnated layer (3s), said cutting being performed in such a way as to leave the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) intact; and
cutting the segmented continuous sheet (5) transversely along two cutting lines (6, 7) parallel to cutting directions (dl, d2, d3), oriented obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction (D), the segmented continuous sheet (5) being cut over its entire width and thickness, including the antiadhesive lining, thus forming a segmented discrete ply (8) formed by a discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) and the antiadhesive lining, [...]
As written the claim is rendered indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., it is unclear what said "segmented continuous sheet (5)" was with respect to the rest of the claimed invention). Claim 12, however, also recites --the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) having a thickness and being composed of [the] unidirectional fibers disposed parallel to the longitudinal direction (D), the [unidirectional] fibers being embedded in the resin matrix, and the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to the face of the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) characterized in that only the discrete segmented [pre-impregnated] layer (3ds) comprises [the] segments (4) cut over its entire thickness and disposed in staggered fashion-- in lines 22 to 28. As such, it is the decision of the examiner that said "segmented continuous sheet (5)" is formed from the cutting of the continuous single-layer sheet (1). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation in lines 9 to 18 will be treated to read as:
cutting the continuous single-layer sheet (1) so as to form, in the continuous pre-impregnated layer (3), segments (4) disposed in staggered fashion and thus form a continuous segmented pre-impregnated layer (3s), said cutting being performed in such a way as to leave the continuous antiadhesive lining (2) intact, thus forming a segmented continuous sheet (5); and
cutting the segmented continuous sheet (5) transversely along two cutting lines (6, 7) parallel to cutting directions (d1, d2, d3), oriented obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction (D), the segmented continuous sheet (5) being cut over its entire width and thickness, including the antiadhesive lining (2), thus forming the impregnated segmented ply (8) formed by a discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) and a discrete[[the]] antiadhesive lining (2d), [...]
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation "the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d)" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (In the instant case, this is corrected by the recommended corrections indicated above to claim 12, see numbered paragraph 30 of this office action.)
Claims 13, 14, and 20, which depend upon claim 12, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 12-14 and 20: Instant claim 12 recites --the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) being a rectangular segment in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)-- in lines 28 to 30. Claim 12, however, also recites --a segmented discrete ply (8) formed by a discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) and the antiadhesive lining-- in lines 16 to 17. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., that said "discrete impregnated segmented ply (8)" further comprises another like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2), in addition to the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) that it already comprises). Furthermore, as written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) in the instant case where said "like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)" is different from the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to the face of the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds); or (2) in the instant case where said "like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)" is the "discrete antiadhesive lining (2d)". For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation is considered to apply and the limitation will be treated to read as --the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3ds) of discrete antiadhesive lining (2d)--.
Claims 13, 14, and 20, which depend upon claim 12, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 13, 14, and 20 : Instant claim 13 recites the limitation --the discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) comprising (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d)-- in lines 33 to 34. In the instant case, while claim 13 recites --supplying N discrete pre-impregnated plies comprising the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) [...], depositing sequentially on the continuous strip (15) the N discrete pre-impregnated plies-- in lines 11 to 16. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention, in that it is unclear where the "+1" discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) comes from (i.e., there is no recitation that said continuous strip (15) comprises another discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d)). As such, the claim is rendered indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. (In the instant case, while claim 13 recites --supplying a continuous strip (15) composed of a continuous single-layer sheet (1) or a segmented continuous sheet (5) or a continuous antiadhesive lining (2)-- in lines 4 to 5, and clearly indicates dependency to claim 12, with regards to the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8), on lines 30 to 31. There is no indication that said "continuous single-layer sheet (1)" or that said "segmented continuous sheet (5)" are the same as those recited in claim 12 or are different.) For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat, the continuous strip (15) as comprising the additional discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d), appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 20, which depend upon claim 13, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 13, 14, and 20: Instant claim 13 recites --the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) which comprises unidirectional fibers embedded in a resin matrix-- in lines 11 to 12, and also recites that --at least one discrete pre-impregnated ply is the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) of claim 12, wherein the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) is formed by the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds)-- in lines 30 to 32. Claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, recites --the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) [...] being composed of unidirectional fibers [...], the [unidirectional] fibers being embedded in the resin matrix-- in lines 22 to 24. In the instant case, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the unidirectional fibers of (3d) and (3ds) are the same, and the resin matrix of (3d) and (3ds) are also the same; (2) that the unidirectional fibers of (3d) and (3ds) are different, and the resin matrix of (3d) and (3ds) are also different; or (3) that the unidirectional fibers of (3d) and (3ds) are the same and/or different, and the resin matrix of (3d) and (3ds) are the same and/or different. For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation has been applied.
Claims 14 and 20, which depend upon claim 13, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duqueine et al. (US 2011/0111168 A1) in view of Jerome (FR 3078010 A1).
Regarding Claim 11: Jerome discloses a composite material comprising a composite intermediate product made up of layers of flat segments (ref. #11) of fibers (ref. #12) which are unidirectional and arranged parallel to each other to form a sheet (ref. #15) said fibers are then embedded in a resin matrix to form a pre-layer (ref. #13; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous pre-impregnated layer") which is directed onto a support (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous antiadhesive lining") that enters a cutting station within which the pre-layer undergoes longitudinal cutting to produce rectangular segments (ref. #11; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "segments") that are identical and positioned juxtaposed and in a substantially staggered arrangement to form the intermediate product in the form of a layer (ref. #10; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "segmented continuous sheet") (figures 1 to 4, 6, [Pg. 1: li. 1-4], [Pg. 6: li. 33 to Pg. 7: li. 31], [Pg. 9: li. 24 to Pg. 10: li. 42] of Jerome). Jerome further discloses forming a mat comprising a stack of layers of flat multi-fiber segments arranged in juxtaposition, wherein the orientation direction of the segments in each layer are the same, and the orientation direction of the segments in one layer have an angle of between +40° and +50° relative to the orientation direction of the segments of another layer onto which it is disposed (figure 4, [Pg.4: li. 14-21 and 22-24], [Pg. 5: li. 7-17], and [Pg. 6: li. 3-9] of Jerome). Jerome also discloses that the stacked layers have clean edges from cutting, and that the layers are bonded to one another ([Pg. 5: li. 30-34] of Jerome). (In the instant case, said support is considered to be an antiadhesive lining so as the allow the intermediate product to be unwound for use ([Pg. 5: li. 1-2] of Jerome).)
Jerome fails to disclose --the segmented continuous sheet (5) cut over its entire width and thickness into rectangular segments, each of the rectangular segments in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining (2)--.
Duqueine discloses a multi-axial planar composite product which is cut from a continuous multi-layer mat (ref. #13) having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, wherein the continuous multi-layer mat is formed by laying up on a conveyor belt (ref. #2) surface a first layer comprising juxtaposed tapes (ref. #7) of unidirectional reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with resin, the tapes presenting a first angle between 10° and 90° relative to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the first layer at least one second layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #8) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the second layer presenting a second angle of 90° to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the second layer a third layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #9) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the third layer presenting a third angle between -10° and -90° to the longitudinal direction, compaction of the at least two layers, and then cutting the mat into at least one multi-axial planar composite product or semi-finished product ([0001], [0017]-[0029], [0042]-[0046], [0053]-[0064] of Duqueine). Duqueine also discloses that each of the tapes are cut to the width of the support (conveyor) that will form the width of the mat ([0058] of Duqueine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the cutting of Duqueine with the segmented continuous sheet (5) of Jerome in order to have --the segmented continuous sheet (5) cut over its entire width and thickness into rectangular segments, each of the rectangular segments in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining (2)--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the cutting of Duqueine with the segmented continuous sheet (5) of Jerome, from the stand-point of having single products of multi-axial planar composite producing having deformability properties ([0019] of Duqueine). (In the instant case, the combination of Jerome in view of Duqueine would result in the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (tape) and with an underlying discrete antiadhesive lining tape cut into a rectangular segment and a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining tape, respectively.)
(Note: Instant claim 11 recites limitations which have been considered by the examiner to be "product-by-process" limitations, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps were considered when assessing the patentability of the product-by-process claims over the prior art. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP §2113.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duqueine et al. (US 2011/0111168 A1) in view of Jerome (FR 3078010 A1).
Regarding Claim 12: Duqueine discloses a multi-axial planar composite product (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "discrete segmented multilayer mat") which is cut from a continuous multi-layer mat (ref. #13) having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, wherein the continuous multi-layer mat is formed by laying up on a conveyor belt (ref. #2) surface a first layer comprising juxtaposed tapes (ref. #7; wherein a single strip of said tape is considered equivalent to the claimed "discrete impregnated segmented ply") of unidirectional reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with resin, the tapes presenting a first angle between 10° and 90° relative to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the first layer at least one second layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #8) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the second layer presenting a second angle of 90° to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the second layer a third layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #9) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the third layer presenting a third angle between -10° and -90° to the longitudinal direction, compaction of the at least two layers, and then cutting the mat into at least one multi-axial planar composite product or semi-finished product ([0001], [0017]-[0029], [0042]-[0046], [0053]-[0064] of Duqueine). Duqueine also discloses that each of the tapes are cut to the width of the support (conveyor) that will form the width of the mat ([0058] of Duqueine). Duqueine further discloses that the mat can be cut into single products whose width can be equal to 150 mm and whose length can be equal to the length of the table (i.e., up to 10 m) ([0064] of Duqueine), but does not explicitly recite that the --discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) having a discrete geometry inscribed in the rectangle of length (L) and of width (1) with the length-to-width ratio (L/1) less than or equal to 20--. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the ratio to be less than or equal to 67 [= (10,000 mm)/(150 mm)]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --less than or equal to 20--. Duqueine differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. 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 Duqueine, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Duqueine fails to disclose --a discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a face of the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds), characterized in that only the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) comprises segments (4) cut over its entire thickness and disposed in staggered fashion, and the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) being a rectangular segment in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)--.
Jerome discloses a composite material comprising a composite intermediate product made up of layers of flat segments (ref. #11) of fibers (ref. #12) which are unidirectional and arranged parallel to each other to form a sheet (ref. #15) said fibers are then embedded in a resin matrix to form a pre-layer (ref. #13; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous pre-impregnated layer") which is directed onto a support (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous antiadhesive lining") that enters a cutting station within which the pre-layer undergoes longitudinal cutting to produce rectangular segments (ref. #11; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "segments") that are identical and positioned juxtaposed and in a substantially staggered arrangement to form the intermediate product in the form of a layer (ref. #10; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "segmented continuous sheet") (figures 1 to 4, 6, [Pg. 1: li. 1-4], [Pg. 6: li. 33 to Pg. 7: li. 31], [Pg. 9: li. 24 to Pg. 10: li. 42] of Jerome). Jerome further discloses forming a mat comprising a stack of layers of flat multi-fiber segments arranged in juxtaposition, wherein the orientation direction of the segments in each layer are the same, and the orientation direction of the segments in one layer have an angle of between +40° and +50° relative to the orientation direction of the segments of another layer onto which it is disposed (figure 4, [Pg.4: li. 14-21 and 22-24], [Pg. 5: li. 7-17], and [Pg. 6: li. 3-9] of Jerome). Jerome also discloses that the stacked layers have clean edges from cutting, and that the layers are bonded to one another ([Pg. 5: li. 30-34] of Jerome). (In the instant case, said support is considered to be an antiadhesive lining so as the allow the intermediate product to be unwound for use ([Pg. 5: li. 1-2] of Jerome).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the composite material of Jerome with the discrete impregnated segmented ply disclosed by Duqueine in order to have --a discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a face of the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds), characterized in that only the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) comprises segments (4) cut over its entire thickness and disposed in staggered fashion, and the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) being a rectangular segment in contact with a like-sized segment derived from the antiadhesive lining (2)--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the composite material of Jerome with the discrete impregnated segmented ply disclosed by Duqueine, from the stand-point of having segments of pre-impregnated fibers totally independent of each other over their entire periphery while being organized in the plane and in space in such a way that they allow controlled movement and perfect positioning repeatability ([Pg. 4: li. 11-14] of Jerome). (In the instant case, the combination of Duqueine in view of Jerome would result in the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (tape) and with an underlying discrete antiadhesive lining tape cut into a rectangular segment and a like-sized segment derived from the continuous antiadhesive lining tape, respectively.)
(Note: Instant claim 12 recites limitations which have been considered by the examiner to be "product-by-process" limitations, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps were considered when assessing the patentability of the product-by-process claims over the prior art. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP §2113.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duqueine et al. (US 2011/0111168 A1) in view of Jerome (FR 3078010 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Kawabe et al. (US 2009/0291278 A1).
Regarding Claim 13: Duqueine discloses a multi-axial planar composite product (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "discrete segmented multilayer mat") which is cut from a continuous multi-layer mat (ref. #13) having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, wherein the continuous multi-layer mat is formed by laying up on a conveyor belt (ref. #2) surface a first layer comprising juxtaposed tapes (ref. #7; wherein a single strip of said tape is considered equivalent to the claimed "discrete impregnated segmented ply") of unidirectional reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with resin, the tapes presenting a first angle between 10° and 90° relative to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the first layer at least one second layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #8) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the second layer presenting a second angle of 90° to the longitudinal direction, laying up on the second layer a third layer comprising juxtaposed unidirectional tapes (ref. #9) of reinforcing fibers preimpregnated with a resin, the tapes of the third layer presenting a third angle between -10° and -90° to the longitudinal direction, compaction of the at least two layers, and then cutting the mat into at least one multi-axial planar composite product or semi-finished product ([0001], [0017]-[0029], [0042]-[0046], [0053]-[0064] of Duqueine). Duqueine also discloses that each of the tapes are cut to the width of the support (conveyor) that will form the width of the mat ([0058] of Duqueine). Duqueine further discloses that the mat can be cut into single products whose width can be equal to 150 mm and whose length can be equal to the length of the table (i.e., up to 10 m) ([0064] of Duqueine), but does not explicitly recite that the --discrete impregnated segmented ply (8) having a discrete geometry inscribed in the rectangle of length (L) and of width (1) with the length-to-width ratio (L/1) less than or equal to 20--. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the ratio to be less than or equal to 67 [= (10,000 mm)/(150 mm)]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --less than or equal to 20--. Duqueine differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. 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 Duqueine, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Duqueine fails to disclose --the discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) composed of the stack of discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) comprising, (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of the unidirectional fibers embedded in the resin matrix, the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers being stacked one on top of the other, and the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a free face of each of a first and an (N+1)th discrete pre-impregnated layer, sandwiching the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers, characterized in that at least one discrete pre-impregnated ply is the discrete impregnated segmented ply (8), wherein the discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) is formed by the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds), and in that at least one discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) has a triangular, trapezoidal or parallelogram geometry--.
Jerome discloses a composite material comprising a composite intermediate product made up of layers of flat segments (ref. #11) of fibers (ref. #12) which are unidirectional and arranged parallel to each other to form a sheet (ref. #15) said fibers are then embedded in a resin matrix to form a pre-layer (ref. #13; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous pre-impregnated layer") which is directed onto a support (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "continuous antiadhesive lining") that enters a cutting station within which the pre-layer undergoes longitudinal cutting to produce rectangular segments (ref. #11; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "segments") that are identical and positioned juxtaposed and in a substantially staggered arrangement to form the intermediate product in the form of a layer (ref. #10; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "segmented continuous sheet") (figures 1 to 4, 6, [Pg. 1: li. 1-4], [Pg. 6: li. 33 to Pg. 7: li. 31], [Pg. 9: li. 24 to Pg. 10: li. 42] of Jerome). Jerome further discloses forming a mat comprising a stack of layers of flat multi-fiber segments arranged in juxtaposition, wherein the orientation direction of the segments in each layer are the same, and the orientation direction of the segments in one layer have an angle of between +40° and +50° relative to the orientation direction of the segments of another layer onto which it is disposed (figure 4, [Pg.4: li. 14-21 and 22-24], [Pg. 5: li. 7-17], and [Pg. 6: li. 3-9] of Jerome). Jerome also discloses that the stacked layers have clean edges from cutting, and that the layers are bonded to one another ([Pg. 5: li. 30-34] of Jerome).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the composite material of Jerome with the multilayer mat disclosed by Duqueine in order to have--the discrete segmented multilayer mat (80) obtained by the method as claimed in claim 8 and composed of the stack of discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) comprising, on the one hand, (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of unidirectional fibers embedded in the resin matrix, the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers being stacked one on top of the other, and the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a free face of a first discrete pre-impregnated layer, characterized in that at least one of the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d), are discrete segmented pre-impregnated layers (3ds) and in that at least one discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (3ds) has a parallelogram geometry--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the composite material of Jerome with the multilayer mat disclosed by Duqueine, from the stand-point of having segments of pre-impregnated fibers totally independent of each other over their entire periphery while being organized in the plane and in space in such a way that they allow controlled movement and perfect positioning repeatability ([Pg. 4: li. 11-14] of Jerome). (In the instant case, the combination of Duqueine in view of Jerome would result in the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layer (tape) and with an underlying discrete antiadhesive lining tape cut into a parallelogram geometry. Furthermore, Jerome would add a fourth sheet in the 0° direction with respect to the longitudinal axis.)
Duqueine in view of Jerome fails to disclose --the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a free face of each of a first and an (N+1)th discrete pre-impregnated layer, sandwiching the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers--.
Kawabe discloses a multiaxially reinforced laminate molding formed from reinforcing fiber sheets of reinforcing fibers and impregnated with a thermosetting resin as a matrix ([0001] of Kawabe). Kawabe also discloses a prepreg (ref. "P") formed of a laminated sheet (ref. "L"), wherein the laminated sheet is formed from reinforcing fiber sheets (ref. "S1", "S2", and "S3"), where S2 and S3 are cut into pieces having a predetermined length and sequentially stacked onto S1, wherein the laminated sheet is then heated and pressed to form the prepreg (figure 5 and [0061]-[0069] of Kawabe). It is also disclosed by Kawabe that a release film is adhered to the lower surface of the prepreg to prevent adhesion of the prepreg when rolled (figure 5 and [0069] of Kawabe). Kawabe further discloses that the prepreg is then taken from the roll and cut to a required size (figure 6 and ]0071] of Kawabe). It is further disclosed by Kawabe that the prepreg can be cut to a size that can fit into a 320 mm width and 320 mm length mold ([0098] of Kawabe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the prepreg of Kawabe with the segmented multilayer mat disclosed by Duqueine in view of Jerome in order to have --the discrete antiadhesive lining (2d) applied to a free face of each of a first and an (N+1)th discrete pre-impregnated layer, sandwiching the (N+1) discrete pre-impregnated layers--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the laminated reinforcing fiber sheet and stacked reinforcing fiber sheet laminate of Kawabe with the discrete segmented multilayer mat disclosed by Duqueine in view of Jerome, from the stand-point of preventing adhesion of the prepreg in a rolled state ([0069] of Kawabe). (In the instant case, the segmented multilayer mat disclosed by Duqueine in view of Jerome would be combined in such a manner that the last layer of the stack of the laminated sheet would be the antiadhesion lining, such that before winding onto the roller it would have a second antiadhesion lining (release layer) on the opposing side (see figure 5 of Kawabe). Furthermore, in that Kawabe discloses that the formed mat is cut to size to fit into a mold of 320 mm width and 320 mm length ([0098] of Kawabe), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the segmented multilayer mat of Duqueine in view of Jerome and Kawabe would desirably have a L/l ratio of about 1 and would be "discrete" as claimed.)
(Note: Instant claim 13 recites limitations which have been considered by the examiner to be "product-by-process" limitations, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps were considered when assessing the patentability of the product-by-process claims over the prior art. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP §2113.)
Regarding Claim 14: Duqueine in view of Jerome and Kawabe discloses that the unidirectional fibers of a given discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) from a reinforcement angle (β) lying between 0 and 180° with the unidirectional fibers of the discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of the same discrete stack which are adjacent to and in contact with the given discrete pre-impregnated layer (3d) (figures 4 to 6 of Jerome; figure 1 of Duqueine). (In the instant case, the layers are at angles of 45°.)
Regarding Claim 20: Duqueine in view of Jerome and Kawabe discloses that all the discrete pre-impregnated layers (3d) of a discrete stack are the discrete segmented pre-impregnated layers (3ds) whose cutting angles are 90° and whose reinforcement angles (β) are equal to the cutting angle (α) plus a multiple (n) of 45° with n = 0 to 4 (figures 4 to 6 of Jerome; figure 1 of Duqueine).
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781