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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0021682 (hereinafter “Liang”), and further in view of a book titled “Complete Textile Glossary” by Celanese Acetate LLC (hereinafter “Celanese”).Regarding claim 1 Liang teaches a preform structure comprising a plurality of sheets/composite layers (including a bottom sheet/layer corresponding to a support layer that serves as a substrate for the sheet/layer applied above) comprising carbon fibers (paragraphs [0024] and [0026], and Figure 1). Liang teaches a stitching process where a thread of thermally conductive material secures the plurality of sheets/composite layers together (securing the carbon fiber to the support layer) (paragraph [0028] and Figure 1). Liang teaches the thread of thermally conductive material, also referred to as thermally conductive fibers/yarns, comprises carbon fiber materials (carbon-based thread), including a carbon nanotube yarn (paragraphs [0009], [0020] and [0044] – [0046]). Liang also teaches the thermally conductive fibers may be twisted (or bundled together) to make said fibers suitable for stitching (paragraph [0048]), which corresponds to a spun yarn of two or more carbon nanotubes. Liang does not explicitly teach the thermally conductive fibers (spun yarn of two or more carbon nanotubes) is in a Z-spin. Celanese defines twisting, in reference to textiles, as the process of combining filaments into a yarn by twisting them together, where the twisting of fibers is employed to increase strength, smoothness, and uniformity in yarns (page 169, definition of “TWISTING”). Celanese teaches different directions or types of twisting includes a Z-twist (Z-spin) yarn (page 169, definition of “TWIST, DIRECTION OF”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the twisted thermally conductive fibers of Liang with the Z-twist (Z-spin) direction, as disclosed by Celanese, to improve the strength, smoothness, and/or uniformity of the formed yarns.Regarding claims 3-5 In addition, Liang teaches the composite sheets (support layer) includes at least one sheet of woven or non-woven fibers comprising glass fibers (glass fiber cloth), carbon fibers (carbon fiber cloth), etc., and a polymeric matrix material (resin cloth or resin film) (paragraphs [0012] – [0013]).Regarding claim 6 In addition, Liang teaches the preform structure comprises at least one sheet of woven or non-woven fibers, which undergoes the aforementioned stitching process to form a stitched composite material (claim 1). Liang also teaches the stitched composite material is impregnated with a resin (claim 8).Regarding claim 12 Regarding the tensile strength of the carbon-based thread, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the carbon-based thread has a tensile strength of 500 MPa or more, the claimed property is deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the combination of Liang and Celanese teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang and Celanese as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0142988 (hereinafter “Grelin”).Regarding claim 7 The limitations for claim 5 have been set forth above. In addition, Liang teaches the preform structure comprising at least one sheet of woven or non-woven fibers, which undergoes the aforementioned stitching process forms a stitched composite material (claim 1). Liang also teaches the stitched composite material is impregnated with a resin (claim 8). Liang teaches the polymeric matrix material (resin that is a material of the resin cloth or the resin film) is a cured or B-stage cured resin (paragraph [0013]). Liang also teaches the stitched composite material is impregnated with a resin (resin with which the preform structure is impregnated) and is then cured or B-stage cured resin (paragraph [0011]). Liang teaches the resins used include those which are well known in the art, including thermoplastics or thermosets (paragraph [0036]). Liang does not explicitly teach the polymeric matrix material (resin that is a material of the resin cloth or the resin film) and the impregnating resin (resin with which the preform structure is impregnated) are the same material. Grelin teaches a method for making a preform (abstract). Grelin teaches the use of a thermoplastic resin in a support of the preform should preferably be the same as a resin of a matrix material in order to have perfect compatibility with each other (paragraph [0047]). Liang and Grelin are analogous inventions in the field of a method of forming a preform. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin material of the polymeric matrix material and the impregnating resin of Liang with the same material, as taught by Grelin, to impart perfect compatibility between the polymeric matrix material and the impregnating resin material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 9 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC §102(a)(1), and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the additional consideration of Celanese.
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights