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 § 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.
Claims 6 and 9 are 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.
Claim 6 recites “a termination point spaced apart from the third edge by less than a width of one of the conductive filaments”. Applicant has not pointed to nor has examiner found support for such an amendment. Applicant is advised to point for support for such an amendment or amend the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the shift register comprising parallel input lines and a serial output line, the shift register operable to capture in parallel voltage states of the conductive filaments and to provide a serial output identifying the continuity status of said one or said ones of conductive filaments”. Applicant has not pointed to nor has examiner found support for such an amendment. Applicant is advised to point for support for such an amendment or amend the claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylezinski et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0260858) in view of Gibson et al. (US Pat. 9,365,302).
Regarding claim 1, Wylezinski et al. teaches a fabric for locating damage including a puncture through the fabric with the fabric comprising a first plurality of conductive filaments (420,430) that are spaced apart within a layer of the fabric, a second plurality of insulating filaments (440, 442, 444) distributed across the conductive filaments within the layer of the fabric with the insulating filaments adhering the conductive filaments together to form the layer of the fabric yet separating the conductive filaments and electrically insulating the conductive filaments from each other and a continuity tester for checking an electrical continuity through each of the conductive filaments and the continuity tester for identifying any one or ones of the conductive filaments exhibiting a loss of electrical continuity due to the damage [Abstract, 0043-0044, 0052].
Wylezinski et al. teach the continuity tester, but are silent regarding the specifics of the continuity tester. However, Gibson et al. teach continuity tester for use in damage detection with voltage drivers connected to first ends of conductive filaments and resistive loads connected the second ends of the conductive filaments in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired [7:3-15 and 8:3-9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuity tester specifics as taught by Gibson et al. in Wylezinski et al. in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the conductive filaments and the insulating filaments are interleaved within the layer of the fabric [Figure 3].
Regarding claim 3, the conductive filaments and the insulating filaments are all approximately parallel within the layer of the fabric [0045 and Figs. 3-4].
Regarding claim 4, the conductive filaments are spaced apart approximately uniformly within the layer of the fabric.
Regarding claim 5, the conductive filaments are approximately parallel within the layer of the fabric and the insulating filaments are approximately parallel within the layer of the fabric.
Regarding claims 6-7, the fabric is rectangular with first, second, third and fourth edge in that order around the periphery of the fabric that is rectangular and within the layer each of the conductive filaments spans from a first edge to nearby the third edge [Figures]. Wylezinski et al. are silent regarding the U turn. However, Wylezinski teach the need for the conductive ends to be gathered for connection to the systems and/or electrical connector and given the level of ordinary skill in the art knowing that the first and second end must be gathered together for the fabric to work as Wylezinski et al. teaches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive filaments make a U turn and span back from nearly the third edge to a second end at the first edge in order to gather the ends of the conductive filaments to ensure the fabric worked and the conductive ends were gathered for connection to the systems and/or the electrical connector and arrive at the claimed invention wherein the continuity tester is electrically connected to the first and second ends of each of the conductive filaments at the first edge of the fabric that is rectangular. It further would have been obvious to have the termination point spaced apart from the third edge be in the claimed spacing in order to ensure the filament was enclosed in the fabric and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, for each one of the conductive filaments, said one of the conductive filaments has a respective first end and a respective second end. Wylezinski et al. are silent regarding the specifics of the continuity tester. However, Gibson et al. teach the continuity tester comprises a voltage driver for applying an applied voltage to the respective first end and a resistive load electrically coupled to the respective second end and the resistive load having a resistance greater than an expected resistance of the one of the conductive filaments [7:4-28]. The circuitry within the continuity tester confirms the electrical continuity upon the respective second end having a voltage greater than a threshold voltage and the circuitry within the continuity tester identifies the loss of the electrical continuity upon the respective second end having a voltage less than the threshold voltage in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired [7:4-38 and 8:3-9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuity tester specifics as taught by Gibson et al. in Wylezinski et al. in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Wylezinski et al. teach the continuity tester, but is silent regarding the specifics of the continuity tester. However, Gibson et al. teach the continuity tester comprises a parallel-in-shift-out register structurally coupled to the respective second end of each of the conductive filaments and the shift register operable to capture in parallel voltage states of the conductive filaments and provide a serial out identifying the continuity status of the one or ones of the conductive filaments in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired [7:4-38 and 8:3-9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuity tester specifics as taught by Gibson et al. in Wylezinski et al. in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired and arrive at the claimed invention. Wylezinski at 7:4-15 states “Thus, a total of 28 data traces/lines from a microcontroller of the monitor 30 might be used to inject test signals into the parallel conductors in the detection layers, and a total of 24 data lines may be used to monitor the presence of the test signals at the opposite ends. A series of diodes 39 can also used to isolate the lines in the detection layers from each other in order to be able to evaluate the condition of each line independently of the condition of other lines. The test signal may be composed of a sequence of digital ones and zeros (e.g., binary pattern) and can be applied to one end of each line, wherein the signal at the opposite end may be monitored to determine the presence or absence of the test signal.”.
Regarding claim 10, the continuity tester is for identifying said one or said ones of the conductive filaments exhibiting the loss of electrical continuity due to the puncture through the fabric [0052].
Regarding claim 11, the fabric is a rigid fabric (stiffening is taught and therefore considered to be a brittle plate). Although Wylezinski et al. does not disclose the additive manufacturing, it is noted that “[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) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed additive manufacturing process and given that Wylezinski et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fabric, Wylezinski et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fabric. The fabric (or brittle plate) fractures upon puncture. However, the recitation in the claims that the fracture is “to reduce risk of electrical shorting between the conductive filaments” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Wylezinksi discloses the fabric as presently claimed, it is clear that the fabric of Wylezinksi would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. reducing risk of electrical shorting between the conductive filaments, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Wylezinski et al. teach a fabric for locating a damage including a puncture through the fabric with the fabric comprising one or more layers with each layer including a plurality of conductive filaments (420,430) that are spaced apart within the layer of the fabric and a plurality of insulating filaments (440,442, 444) distributed across the conductive filaments within the layer of the fabric, the insulating filaments adhering the conductive filaments together to form the layer of the fabric, yet separating the conductive filaments and electrically insulating the conductive filaments from each other and a continuity tester for checking for an electrical continuity through each of the conductive filaments of each of said one or more layers, the continuity tester for identifying any one or ones of the conductive filaments of said one or more layers exhibiting a loss of the electrical continuity due to the damage [Abstract, 0043-0044, 0052 and Figs. 3-4].
Wylezinski et al. teach the one or more layers, but are silent regarding the specifics of the layers. However, Gibson et al. teaches the conductive filaments of a first layer are approximately parallel within the first layer of the fabric and the conductive filaments of a second layer are approximately parallel along a second direction within the second layer of the fabric with the first and second directions being perpendicular within the fabric and the conductive filaments of a third layer are approximately parallel along the first direction within a third layer of the fabric and the conductive filaments of a fourth layer are approximately parallel along the second direction in the fourth layer of the fabric (Gibson states “ FIG. 2 shows a detection pattern 14 that might be defined by a multi-layer grid of conductive traces. Several detection layers can be implemented, where alternate layers are arranged in an orthogonal direction with respect to adjacent layers.” at 3:6-10) and the continuity tester identifies coordinates in the first and second directions of the puncture through the fabric and a trajectory of projectile causing the puncture when the ones of the conductive filaments include at least one of the conductive filaments in each of the four layers exhibiting the loss of the electrical continuity configured to determine a trajectory of a projectile identifying coordinates of several conductive filaments across at least the four layers and a first pair of perpendicular filaments in a first plane and second pair of perpendicular filaments in a second plane define trajectory points with the line through the trajectory points specifying the projectile path in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired [3:6-6:64]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuity tester specifics as taught by Gibson et al. in Wylezinski et al. in order to provide damage detection that is simple and gathers as much information as desired and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2004/0009729 teaches a fabric with a continuity tester.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the newly amended limitations are not taught by the cited art. Newly cited art of Gibson et al. teaches the new limitations as set forth above. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789