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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner agrees to rejoin product claims 1-6 for examination along with elected process Claims 7-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (US 2018/0169930) in view of Miller (WO 2022/150727).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Tsotsis (US’930) teaches a reinforced fabric for prepregs, comprising: one or more of a modified veil layer that comprises a nonwoven veil carrier coated with particles, including ceramic particles [0036,0043]; and one or more of a fabric layer abutting a surface of the modified veil layer to form a reinforced fabric (Claim 9; [0007,0014-0015]) that is configured to be (i.e. capable of being) incorporated into a prepreg [0003-0005]. The veil, comprising thermoplastic fabric [0036-0037], is necessarily decomposable under at least some set of conditions (e.g. high heat, acid).
US’930 fails to teach that the ceramic particles with which the nonwoven veil carrier is coated comprise ultrahigh-temperature particles. Miller (WO’727) is analogous art in the field of producing composite structures incorporating nonwoven veils, and suggests intumescent nonwoven veils to add fire resistance to a composite, including for environments with extremely high temperatures (Abstract). In particular, WO’727 suggests incorporating ultrahigh temperature ceramic particles (e.g. carbides of halfnium, tantalum, and niobium; borides of hafnium, zirconium; nitrides of hafnium and titanium) in a fabric to increase fire resistance [0059]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the reinforced fabric of US’930 by incorporating ultrahigh temperature ceramic particles, because US’930 suggests coating a nonwoven carrier with ceramic particles and WO’727 suggests both that there are foreseeable uses of composites in extremely hot environments and that ultrahigh temperature ceramic particles, including hafnium carbide, can be used to lend fire resistance to fabrics used in composites.
Regarding Claim 4, US’930 teaches that the nonwoven veil carrier comprises a thermoplastic nonwoven veil [0017].
Regarding Claim 5, US’930 teaches that a reinforced fabric can include more than one veil layer, and a veil includes a nonwoven fabric [0041,0017]. Because the veil-stabilized fabric portion, comprising a combination of any included veils and a unidirectional fabric to which the veils are attached, is immersed in a resin bath to coat the veil-stabilized fabric portion [0043], it would have been expected that one nonwoven veil fabric between another nonwoven veil fabric and the unidirectional fabric would be coated along with any other components of the veil-stabilized fabric portion.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 fails to teach multiple coatings. However, it would have been obvious to include two or more coatings comprising ultrahigh-temperature particles as a prima facie obvious duplication of steps (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B) and because it would have been obvious to repeat the immersion in a resin bath as many times as necessary to achieve a desired level of impregnation.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “wherein the nonwoven veil layer is pretreated with an electrical charge” is an aspect of a process of making the claimed product (the claimed product need not have an electrical charge) and is not given patentable weight for the claimed product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 fails to teach or fairly suggest submerging the nonwoven veil carrier in more than one coating solutions and rinsing the nonwoven veil carrier in at least one rinse bath in between submerging the nonwoven veil carrier in each of the more than one coating solutions.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 fails to teach or fairly suggest either decomposing the nonwoven veil carrier or the combination of decomposing the nonwoven veil carrier and embedding ultrahigh-temperature particles into the fabric layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 7-10 and 14-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and overcome the previous rejections under this paragraph. The rejections of Claims 7-10 and 14-15 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-6 and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument concerning Claim 1 that neither US’930 nor WO’727 teaches or suggests decomposing the nonwoven veil carrier (Remarks, pp. 5-6), Claims 1-6 and 21 are drawn to a product and do not require a step of decomposing, only that the veil be decomposable, which it is, since it is made of thermoplastics. Moreover, it is not apparent what veil material would not be decomposable under at least some set of conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duggal (US 2017/0174298) (coatings applied to a nonwoven substrate by charging the substrate and dipping/rinsing multiple times)
Yang et al. (CN108395266A) (woven prepreg veil with ultrahigh temperature particles)
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights