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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on May 1, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claim 1, 18, and 19-20 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 1, 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha et al. (US 2021/0402719 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Guha”) in view of Nishimura et al. (US 4,786,541, hereinafter referred to as “Nishimura”) and Dias et al. (US 2009/0018428 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dias”).
Regarding claim 1, Guha teaches arrangement (Figs 1, 3, and 4) comprising:
a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly (Fig. 1) which comprises at least first (Fig. 1, 114) and second reinforcing fiber formation (Fig. 1, 112) sections stitched to each other using a yarn so as to connect the first (Fig. 1, 114) and second reinforcing fiber formation (Fig. 1, 112) sections along a seam (Fig. 1; para. [0037]: an inventive form is created by laying out one or more commingled fiber bundles on a substrate as a two-dimensional base layer that defines a shape of the form with stitching applied to retain the commingled fibers in a desired placement on the substrate),
the yarn (para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn optionally also includes a plurality of thermoplastic threads comingled with the reinforcing fibers in the yarn) being electrically conductive along a length thereof (para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring, insulated electrical wiring, and a coil of either of the aforementioned around a carrier fiber or bundle of carrier fibers), and
a monitoring device (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412) configured and coupled to the yarn (para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402) so as to be capable of sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn (para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402) that forms the seam or part thereof and receiving a response signal on the yarn.
Guha does not specifically teach yarn passing through the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections.
However, Nishimura teaches yarn passing through the first and second reinforcing fiber formation sections (col. 3, line 37-44: While the yarns are passing repeatedly from the top to the back and then from the back to the top of the two fiber substrates, the yarns integrate the fiber substrates 1 and 2 on both sides. A plurality of stitch yarns 7 are provided at intervals substantially equidistant in the lateral direction so that the fiber substrates 1 and 2 are integrated over the entire surface).
Guha and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a reinforcing fiber material. 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 yarns such as is described in Nishimura into Guha, in order to provide a fiber material for reinforcing plastics, prepared by laminating a plurality of fiber substrates (Nishimura, col. 2, lines 5-8).
Guha and Nishimura do not specifically teach that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn.
However, Dias teaches that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para. [0080]: The size, shape and the binding elements (stitches, tuck loops, floats and laid-in-yarns) and their organization in the base knitted structure would determine the overall electrical characteristics of the ECA, and its response to structural deformation(s) of the knitted structure. This variation of the electrical characteristics of the ECA would determine the type of knitted transducer and its function; para. [0081]: when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations and/or slippages between the yarn contact areas of stitches (stitches are the basic elements of a knitted structure). The yarn deformations may be due to stretching, bending, twisting and compressing, note that “knitted structure” in para. [0080] and “when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations” in para. [0081] reads on “the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint),
wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn (para. [0081]: see above; para. [0100]:The total resistance of the ECA is calculated using RL and RH values of each unit cell (stitch) by constructing the equivalent resistive mesh (FIG. 6)); para. [0103]: Zm is the mesh impedance matrix; para. [0110]: Impedance characteristics were analysed under static and dynamic mechanical loading conditions).
Guha and Dias are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of the transduction zone which is knitted with combinations of binding elements selected from the group comprising stitches. 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 seam forming part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint such as is described Dias into Guha, in order to provide a knitted transducer device comprising a knitted structure having at least one transduction zone, in which the transduction zone is knitted with electrically conductive fibres so that deformation of the knitted structure results in a variation of an electrical property of the transduction zone (Dias, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Guha teaches that the monitoring device comprises at least one electronic circuit (Fig. 4, 404, 406, 408, 412, 414; para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Guha teaches that the electronic circuit is implemented using at least one semiconductor device (Fig. 4, 404; para. [0046]: RFID).
Regarding claim 12, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Guha 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 (para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn optionally also includes a plurality of thermoplastic threads comingled with the reinforcing fibers in the yarn; para. [0037]: an inventive form is created by laying out one or more commingled fiber bundles on a substrate as a two-dimensional base layer that defines a shape of the form with stitching applied to retain the commingled fibers in a desired placement on the substrate), the further yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof (para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring).
Regarding claim 18, Guha in view of Nishimura teaches a method of producing an arrangement (Figs 3-4) including a fiber-reinforced composite component or composite assembly (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing at least first (Fig. 1, 114) and second reinforcing fiber formation (Fig. 1, 112) sections;
providing a yarn (para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn optionally also includes a plurality of thermoplastic threads comingled with the reinforcing fibers in the yarn) that is electrically conductive along a length thereof (para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring, insulated electrical wiring, and a coil of either of the aforementioned around a carrier fiber or bundle of carrier fibers);
arranging the first (Fig. 1, 114) and second reinforcing fiber formation (Fig. 1, 112) sections relative to each other (Fig. 3; para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn);
providing a monitoring device and coupling the monitoring device (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412) to the yarn (para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402) 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.
Guha does not specifically teach 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.
However, Nishimura teaches 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 (col. 3, line 37-44: While the yarns are passing repeatedly from the top to the back and then from the back to the top of the two fiber substrates, the yarns integrate the fiber substrates 1 and 2 on both sides. A plurality of stitch yarns 7 are provided at intervals substantially equidistant in the lateral direction so that the fiber substrates 1 and 2 are integrated over the entire surface).
Guha and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a reinforcing fiber material. 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 yarns such as is described in Nishimura into Guha, in order to provide a fiber material for reinforcing plastics, prepared by laminating a plurality of fiber substrates (Nishimura, col. 2, lines 5-8).
Guha and Nishimura do not specifically teach that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn.
However, Dias teaches that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para. [0080]: The size, shape and the binding elements (stitches, tuck loops, floats and laid-in-yarns) and their organization in the base knitted structure would determine the overall electrical characteristics of the ECA, and its response to structural deformation(s) of the knitted structure. This variation of the electrical characteristics of the ECA would determine the type of knitted transducer and its function; para. [0081]: when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations and/or slippages between the yarn contact areas of stitches (stitches are the basic elements of a knitted structure). The yarn deformations may be due to stretching, bending, twisting and compressing, note that “knitted structure” in para. [0080] and “when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations” in para. [0081] reads on “the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint),
wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn (para. [0081]: see above; para. [0100]:The total resistance of the ECA is calculated using RL and RH values of each unit cell (stitch) by constructing the equivalent resistive mesh (FIG. 6)); para. [0103]: Zm is the mesh impedance matrix; para. [0110]: Impedance characteristics were analysed under static and dynamic mechanical loading conditions).
Guha and Dias are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of the transduction zone which is knitted with combinations of binding elements selected from the group comprising stitches. 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 seam forming part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint such as is described Dias into Guha, in order to provide a knitted transducer device comprising a knitted structure having at least one transduction zone, in which the transduction zone is knitted with electrically conductive fibres so that deformation of the knitted structure results in a variation of an electrical property of the transduction zone (Dias, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, Guha teaches a method of monitoring a structural integrity of a fiber-reinforced composite component (Fig. 3-4; para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn; para. [0037]: an inventive form is created by laying out one or more commingled fiber bundles on a substrate as a two-dimensional base layer that defines a shape of the form with stitching applied to retain the commingled fibers in a desired placement on the substrate), wherein the method comprises monitoring a structural health status of the seam (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412), including:
sending an electrical input signal along at least a section of the yarn that forms at least part of the seam (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412; para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402) and
receiving a response signal on the yarn and evaluating the response signal (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412; para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402).
Guha does not specifically teach composite assembly including a seam formed by stitching using a yarn.
However, Nishimura teaches composite assembly including a seam formed by stitching using a yarn (col. 3, line 37-44: While the yarns are passing repeatedly from the top to the back and then from the back to the top of the two fiber substrates, the yarns integrate the fiber substrates 1 and 2 on both sides. A plurality of stitch yarns 7 are provided at intervals substantially equidistant in the lateral direction so that the fiber substrates 1 and 2 are integrated over the entire surface).
Guha and Nishimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a reinforcing fiber material. 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 yarns such as is described in Nishimura into Guha, in order to provide a fiber material for reinforcing plastics, prepared by laminating a plurality of fiber substrates (Nishimura, col. 2, lines 5-8).
Guha and Nishimura do not specifically teach that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint, wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn.
However, Dias teaches that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para. [0080]: The size, shape and the binding elements (stitches, tuck loops, floats and laid-in-yarns) and their organization in the base knitted structure would determine the overall electrical characteristics of the ECA, and its response to structural deformation(s) of the knitted structure. This variation of the electrical characteristics of the ECA would determine the type of knitted transducer and its function; para. [0081]: when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations and/or slippages between the yarn contact areas of stitches (stitches are the basic elements of a knitted structure). The yarn deformations may be due to stretching, bending, twisting and compressing, note that “knitted structure” in para. [0080] and “when a knitted structure is deformed, the structural deformations are due to the yarn deformations” in para. [0081] reads on “the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint),
wherein the monitoring device measures overload in the joint by monitoring impedance change in the yarn caused by over-straining or stretching of the yarn (para. [0081]: see above; para. [0100]:The total resistance of the ECA is calculated using RL and RH values of each unit cell (stitch) by constructing the equivalent resistive mesh (FIG. 6)); para. [0103]: Zm is the mesh impedance matrix; para. [0110]: Impedance characteristics were analysed under static and dynamic mechanical loading conditions).
Guha and Dias are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of the transduction zone which is knitted with combinations of binding elements selected from the group comprising stitches. 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 seam forming part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint such as is described Dias into Guha, in order to provide a knitted transducer device comprising a knitted structure having at least one transduction zone, in which the transduction zone is knitted with electrically conductive fibres so that deformation of the knitted structure results in a variation of an electrical property of the transduction zone (Dias, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 19, in addition, Guha teaches further comprising detecting rupture of the yarn within the section that forms at least part of the seam (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412; para. [0046]: stitched conductor 402, note the above feature of “embedded antenna connected with stitched conductor 402” in para. [0046] reads on “rupture of the yarn”).
Claims 2-7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajny et al. (US 2022/0107695 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Podhajny”).
Regarding claim 2, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Guha teaches a portion of the yarn which includes the section of the yarn forming the seam or part thereof (Figs 1, 3, and 4; para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn).
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias do 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, Podhajny teaches that 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. [0023]: the reduced resistance or impedance caused by the touch may be detected by a sensing circuit that is configured to monitor and detect resistance and/or impedance between pairs of conductive threads).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, in order to detect a variation in charge or on any one of the first and second set of conductive threads (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 3. Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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 use to drive the treads, other multiplexing schemes, including, for example, wavelength multiplexing, frequency multiplexing, and the like can also be used).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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 5, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Guha teaches functions as an integrated structural health sensor device (para. [0046]: embedded antenna 412).
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias do not specifically teach that within the seam, the yarn functions to support mechanical loads.
However, Podhajny teaches that within the seam, the yarn functions to support mechanical loads (para. [0056]: as shown in FIGS. 4A-B, a textile 400 is formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420. In this example, a spacer structure, including a monofilament yarn 402 maintains a gap between the two textile layers, note that “monofilament yarn 402 maintains a gap between the two textile layers” in para. [0056] reads on “support mechanical loads”).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 functions to support mechanical loads such as is described in Podhajny into Guha, 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 6, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Guha, Nishimura, and Dias do not specifically teach that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint.
However, Podhajny teaches that the seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint (para. [0056]: as shown in FIGS. 4A-B, a textile 400 is formed from two textile layers: an upper textile layer 410 and a lower textile layer 420. In this example, a spacer structure, including a monofilament yarn 402 maintains a gap between the two textile layers, note that “monofilament yarn 402 maintains a gap between the two textile layers” in para. [0056] reads on “part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint”).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 seam forms part of a mechanically load-bearing structural joint such as is described in Podhajny into Guha, 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 7, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Guha teaches an electrically conductive layer (para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring, insulated electrical wiring, and a coil of either of the aforementioned around a carrier fiber or bundle of carrier fibers)
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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”).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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, Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajny 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).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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, Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajn teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition Guha teaches that the seam is crossed by at least one further seam (para. [0037]: an inventive form is created by laying out one or more commingled fiber bundles on a substrate as a two-dimensional base layer that defines a shape of the form with stitching applied to retain the commingled fibers in a desired placement on the substrate),
wherein the at least one further seam is formed at least in part by stitching using a further yarn, the further yarn being electrically conductive along a length thereof (para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring, insulated electrical wiring, and a coil of either of the aforementioned around a carrier fiber or bundle of carrier fibers).
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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, Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajny teaches all the limitation of claim 13.
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Podhajny are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a sensing circuit that is operatively coupled to the first and second set of conductive threads. 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 Guha, 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 Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, Podhajny, and Inoue et al. (US 2018/0044819 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 8, Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajny teaches all the limitation of claim 7, in addition, Guha teaches the electrically conductive layer provided on the yarn core (para. [0023]: the commingled fiber based yarn; para. [0038]: the electrical wiring 121 is bare electrically conductive wiring, insulated electrical wiring).
Guha, Nishimura, Dias, and Podhajny 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”).
Guha and Inoue are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a conductive line material. 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 Guha, 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 Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Cobanoglu et al. (US 2018/0327939 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cobanoglu”).
Regarding claim 9, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Cobanoglu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of modern e-textile applications known in which electric or electronic technology is coupled with the textile technology for a variety of application. 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 Guha, 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 Guha in view of Nishimura, Dias, and Vichniakov et al. (US 2016/0075112 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vichniakov”).
Regarding claim 17, Guha in view of Nishimura and Dias teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Guha, Nishimura, and Dias 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).
Guha and Vichniakov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed 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 anan aircraft and stiffening elements such as circumferential stiffeners (frames) and/or stringers (Vichniakov, para. [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Podhajny et al. (US 10,338,755 B2) teaches a touch-sensitive textile device that is configured to detect the occurrence of a touch, the location of a touch, and/or the force of a touch on the touch-sensitive textile device. In some embodiments, the touch-sensitive textile device includes a first set of conductive threads oriented along a first direction, and a second set of conductive threads interwoven with the first set of conductive threads and oriented along a second direction.
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.
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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
Prosecution Insights