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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on 08/26/2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 18, and 19 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Thus, claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2026 with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocke et al. (US 2020/0291557 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Mocke”) in view of Dunne et al. (US 2016/0238468 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dunne”).
Regarding claim 1, Mocke teaches arrangement (Fig, 5, fabrics) comprising:
a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly (Fig. 5, fabrics 500) which comprises at least first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections (Fig. 5: first stabilizing layer 504 and second stabilizing layer 506 considered the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections, respectively) stitched to each other using a yarn passing through the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508) so as to connect the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections along a seam (para. [0041]: seam formed by knitting thread 508).
Moke does not specifically teach the yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof, and a monitoring device configured and coupled to the yarn so as to be capable of sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms the seam or part thereof and receiving a response signal on the yarn, wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam, and wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint.
However, Dunne teaches the yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof (Figs 3-4 and para. [0055]: a conductive thread), and a monitoring device (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200 and para. [0049]) configured and coupled to the yarn so as to be capable of sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms the seam or part thereof and receiving a response signal on the yarn (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200 includes sensing module 206 to generate and output electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal; paras. [0049], [0088]-[0092]: Stitched sensor 212 (e.g., one or more conductive threads of the stitched sensor) may be permanently coupled to sensing module 206),
wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam (para. [0059]: stitch inherently is load-bearing and is used to measure stretch and Fig. 24: determine deformation occurred in stitched sensor), and
wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam (para [0089]: electrical properties are measured and used to determine stretch. Also see Fig. 24 - electrical property (e.g., resistance, impedance, current, or voltage) of stitched sensor measured at step 222 and deformation is determined at step 226. Deformation is considered incipient damage) or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para. [0059]: stitch inherently is load bearing and is used to measure stretch).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stitched sensors such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Dunne teaches that the monitoring device comprises at least one electronic circuit (Fig. 23, sensing unit 200).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring device such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mocke teaches a portion of the yarn which includes the section of the yarn forming the seam or part thereof (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508).
Mocke does not teach that the monitoring device is configured to detect or measure at least one of an ohmic resistance or an impedance of a portion of the yarn.
However, Dunne teaches the monitoring device is configured to detect or measure at least one of an ohmic resistance or an impedance of a portion of the yarn (para. [0049]: the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring device such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Dunne teaches that the electronic circuit is implemented using at least one semiconductor device (Fig. 23, sensing unit 200; paras. [0088]-[0090]).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electronic circuit such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Mocke teaches that the seam is crossed by at least one further seam, wherein the at least one further seam is formed at least in part by stitching using a further yarn (Fig. 5: seam formed by stitching at 508).
Mocke does not specifically teach further yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof.
However, Dunne teaches further yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof (Figs 3-4: cover stitched sensor 12; paras. [0054]:-[0059]: conductive thread).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrically conductive along a length of yarn such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Mocke teaches a method of producing an arrangement (Fig, 5, fabrics) including a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly (Fig. 5), the method comprising:
providing at least first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections (Fig. 5: first stabilizing layer 504 and second stabilizing layer 506 considered the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections, respectively);
providing a yarn that is electrically conductive along a length thereof (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508);
arranging the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections relative to each other (Fig. 5: first stabilizing layer 504 and second stabilizing layer 506 considered the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections, respectively);
stitching through the first and second reinforcing fiber formations sections using the yarn to connect the first and second fiber formation sections along a seam (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508 and seam formed by knitting thread 508);
Moke does not specifically teach providing a monitoring device and coupling the monitoring device to the yarn so as to enable the monitoring device to send an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms at least part of the seam and to receive a response signal on the yarn, wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam, and wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint
However, Dunne teaches providing a monitoring device (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200) and coupling the monitoring device (Fig. 23: sensing module 206) to the yarn (Fig. 23, 212) so as to enable the monitoring device (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200) to send an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms at least part of the seam and to receive a response signal on the yarn (Fig. 23, 212) (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200 includes sensing module 206 to generate and output electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal; paras. [0049]: the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner; para. [0088]: Sensing module 206 may be coupled to stitched sensor 212; para. [0089]: processor 202 may control sensing module 206 to generate and output an electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal from sensor 212),
wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam (para. [0059]: stitch inherently is load bearing and is used to measure stretch and Fig. 24: determine deforamtion occurred in stitched sensor), and
wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para [0089]: electrical properties are measured and used to determine stretch. Also see Fig. 24 - electrical property (e.g., resistance, impedance, current, or voltage) of stitched sensor measured at step 222 and deformation is determined at step 226. Deformation is considered incipient damage).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the yarn being electrically conductive along a length and monitoring device such as are described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Mocke teaches a method of monitoring a structural integrity of a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly (Fig. 5: first stabilizing layer 504 and second stabilizing layer 506 considered the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections, respectively) including a seam formed by stitching using a yarn (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508).
Mocke does not teach that the method comprises monitoring a structural health status of the seam, including: sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms at least part of the seam; and receiving a response signal on the yarn and evaluating the response signal, wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam, and wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint.
However, Dunne teaches the method comprises monitoring a structural health status of the seam (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200; para. [0049]: The resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner), including: sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms at least part of the seam (Fig. 23: sensing unit 200 includes sensing module 206 to generate and output electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal; paras. [0049]: the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner; para. [0088]: Sensing module 206 may be coupled to stitched sensor 212; para. [0089]: processor 202 may control sensing module 206 to generate and output an electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal from sensor 212); and receiving a response signal on the yarn and evaluating the response signal (Fig. 23 sensing unit; paras. [0049]: the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner; para. [0088]: Sensing module 206 may be coupled to stitched sensor 212; para. [0089]: processor 202 may control sensing module 206 to generate and output an electrical signal to stitched sensor 212 and sense the returning electrical signal from sensor 212).
wherein the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein, within the seam, the yarn is configured both to support mechanical loads transmitted through the mechanically load-bearing structural joint and to function as an integrated structural health sensor for the seam (para. [0059]: stitch inherently is load bearing and is used to measure stretch and Fig. 24: determine deforamtion occurred in stitched sensor), and
wherein the monitoring device is configured to determine a structural health status of the seam by monitoring an impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn resulting from damage or incipient damage in the seam or the mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para [0089]: electrical properties are measured and used to determine stretch. Also see Fig. 24 - electrical property (e.g., resistance, impedance, current, or voltage) of stitched sensor measured at step 222 and deformation is determined at step 226. Deformation is considered incipient damage).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring a structural integrity of a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 19, in addition, Dunne teaches further comprising detecting rupture of the yarn within the section that forms at least part of the seam (para. [0049]: the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed in any suitable manner, note that the above feature of “the resistance (or other electrical property) of the stitched stretch sensor may be measured and analyzed” reads on “detecting rupture of the yarn within the section that forms at least part of the seam” because rupture make the resistance change of yarn).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the detecting rupture of the yarn such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Claims 3-4, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moke in view of Dunne and Podhajny et al. (US 2022/0107695 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Podhajny”).
Regarding claim 3, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach at least one of: the monitoring device is configured to send a constant electrical input signal or a time-varying electrical input signal, or the monitoring device is configured to provide an input signal at intervals or within continuous time periods or continuously during an operational life of the composite component or composite assembly.
However, Podhajny teaches at least one of: the monitoring device is configured to send a constant electrical input signal or a time-varying electrical input signal, or the monitoring device is configured to provide an input signal at intervals or within continuous time periods or continuously during an operational life of the composite component or composite assembly (para. [0050]: the drive signal may include a direct current voltage, a voltage pulse, series of voltage pulses, and/or an alternating voltage that is delivered to the conductive threads 302, 304.of the textile 300; para. [0054]: a time varying voltage signal).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring device such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to drive the conductive threads with an electrical signal and also sense electrical properties of the conductive threads (Podhajny, para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 3. Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach that the constant electrical input signal is a constant voltage input signal, and the time-varying electrical input signal is a time-varying voltage signal.
However, Podhajny teaches that the constant electrical input signal is a constant voltage input signal, and the time-varying electrical input signal is a time-varying voltage signal (para. [0050]: para. [0054]: If a time varying voltage signal is used to drive the treads, other multiplexing schemes, including, for example, wavelength multiplexing, frequency multiplexing, and the like can also be used).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the constant electrical input signal and time-varying electrical input signal such as are described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to drive the conductive threads with an electrical signal and also sense electrical properties of the conductive threads (Podhajny, para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Dunne teaches an electrically conductive layer (Figs 3-4 and para. [0055]: a conductive thread).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrically conductive layer such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach that the yarn comprises a load-bearing yarn core.
However, Podhajny teaches that yarn comprises a load-bearing yarn core (Figs. 5A-5B; para. [0065]: as shown in FIG. 5B, the monofilament yarn 520 (example spacer structure) is configured to deflect and/or compress in response to a touch on the upper textile layer 510; para. [0066]: as shown in FIG. 5A, a first set of conductive threads 502 may be oriented along a first direction and may be incorporated with the first textile layer 510, note that the above feature of “monofilament yarn 520 (example spacer structure)” reads on yarn core”).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the yarn such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to allow a textile to be formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420 (Podhajny, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach that the composite assembly is formed as a shell assembly comprising a stringer coupled to a skin, wherein one of the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections forms part of the stringer, and another one of the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections forms part of the skin.
However, Podhajny teaches that the composite assembly is formed as a shell assembly comprising a stringer (Fig. 4A, 402) coupled to a skin (Fig. 4A, 410), wherein one of the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections forms part of the stringer (Fig. 4A, 402), and another one of the first and second reinforcing fiber (Figs. 4A and 4B) formation sections forms part of the skin (Fig. 4A, 410).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composite assembly such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to allow a textile to be formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420 (Podhajny, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Podhajny teaches first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections form a foot of the stringer (Figs. 5A and Figs 5B, 520).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to allow a textile to be formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420 (Podhajny, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Mocke in view of Dunne and Podhajn teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition Mocke in view of Dunne teaches that the seam is crossed by at least one further seam (Fig. 5 and Figs. 9-10 and para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508),
wherein the at least one further seam is formed at least in part by stitching using a further yarn (para. [0041]: stitched together by a knitting thread 508).
Mocket does not specifically teach yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof.
However, Dunne teaches yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof (Figs 3-4 and para. [0055]: a conductive thread).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the yarn such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach that the shell assembly further comprises a frame or a segment of a frame, wherein the further seam is formed by stitching through a further reinforcing fiber formation section forming part of the frame or the segment using the further yarn.
However, Podhajny teaches that the shell assembly further comprises a frame (Fig. 5B, 510 and 530) or a segment of a frame, wherein the further seam is formed by stitching through a further reinforcing fiber formation section (Fig. 5B, 500) forming part of the frame (Fig. 5B, 500 and Fig. 5B, 510 and 53) or the segment using the further yarn (Fig. 5B, 520).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shell assembly such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to allow a textile to be formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420 (Podhajny, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Mocke in view of Dunne and Podhajny teaches all the limitation of claim 13.
Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach further reinforcing fiber formation section forms a foot of the frame.
However, Podhajny teaches further reinforcing fiber formation section forms a foot of the frame (Fig. 5B, 500 and Fig. 5B, 510 and 53).
Mocke and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reinforcing fiber formation section such as is described in Podhajny into Mocke, in order to allow a textile to be formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420 (Podhajny, para. [0056]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocke in view of Dunne, Podhajny, and Inoue et al. (US 2018/0044819 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 8, Mocke in view of Dunne and Podhajny teaches all the limitation of claim 7, in addition, Dunne teaches the electrically conductive layer provided on the yarn core (Figs 3-4 and para. [0055]: a conductive thread).
Mocke and Dunne are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed stitched fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrically conductive layer such as is described in Dunne into Mocke, in order to sense both stretching and bending of a textile (Dunne, para. [0005]).
Mocke and Dunne do not teach that yarn core comprise carbon nano-tubes.
However, Inoue teaches that yarn core comprise carbon nano-tubes (para. [0053]: the mechanical properties may be reliably improved because the carbon nanotube central yarn and the carbon nanotube untwisted yarn may be well-balancedly located, note that the above feature of “the carbon nanotube central yarn” reads on “yarn core comprise carbon nano-tubes”).
Mocke and Inoue are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of textile (or sheet). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the yarn core comprising carbon nano-tubes such as is described in Inoue into Mocke, in order to all the core material to reliably located at the central part, and the carbon nanotube untwisted yarn is located around the core material. Therefore, in the carbon nanotube fiber, the core material and the carbon nanotube untwisted yarn may be well-balancedly located and allow to improve the mechanical properties of the carbon nanotube fiber (Inoue, paras. [0017]-[0018]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocke in view of Dunne and Cobanoglu et al. (US 2018/0327939 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cobanoglu”).
Regarding claim 9, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach that the yarn comprises an electrically isolating outer coating.
However, Cobanoglu teaches that the yarn comprises an electrically isolating outer coating (para. [0010]: this textile pressure sensor operates by measuring the actual capacitance between two crossing core-spun yarns which have an isolating coating over a conductive core).
Mocke and Cobanoglu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of textile fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the yarn such as is described in Cobanoglu into Mocke, in order to provide a first set of electrically conductive, externally isolated yarns separated by isolating textile yarns (Cobanoglu, para. [0018]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mocke in view of Dunne and Vichniakov et al. (US 2016/0075112 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vichniakov”).
Regarding claim 17, Mocke in view of Dunne teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Mocke and Dunne do not specifically teach the composite component or composite assembly forms part of an
However, Vichniakov teaches the composite component or composite assembly forms part of anpara. [0009]: it is particularly preferred for the fiber composite components to be components of aircraft or spacecraft).
Mocke and Vichniakov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fiber composite components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the part of an.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McMaster et al. (US 10,240,265 B2) teaches that a method for optimizing contact resistance in electrically conductive yarns and textiles, and textiles having such optimized contact resistance, can include selecting a sensing activity for the textile; selecting a combination of variables from among yarn variables, stitch variables, and textile variables; and knitting an electrically conductive yarn in the textile in accordance with the selected combination of variables, wherein the knitted combination of variables provides an optimal contact resistance in the textile correlated with a desired electrical conductivity for the sensing activity.
McMaster et al. (US 10, 119,208 B2) teaches that a method for making a textile sensor and a textile sensor can include selecting a combination of variables from the group consisting of yarn variables, stitch variables, and textile variables; and knitting an electrically conductive yarn in the textile sensor in accordance with the selected combination of variables, wherein the combination of variables is selected so as to provide a controlled amount of contact resistance in the textile sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
