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 .
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) 1-10 and 14-15 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].
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 Claims 7-10, WO’930 teaches preparing a modified veil layer by coating a nonwoven veil carrier with ceramic particles, including submerging the nonwoven veil carrier into a coating solution comprising the ceramic particles and a carrier fluid (resin) [0017,0036,0043,0059]; layering the modified veil layer onto a surface of a fabric layer, since the veil-stabilized fabric portion 120 is submerged in resin for coating and then layered onto other fabrics to form a layering structure (also “laminate”), for example on winding mandrel 134 (Fig. 1; [0040, 0046,0054]); and forming a reinforced fabric that is configured to be (i.e. capable of being) incorporated into a prepreg [0002-0005].
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 method to manufacture a 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 14, US’930 teaches mechanically compressing with a nip roller the modified veil layer with the fabric layer to form the reinforced fabric [0014].
Regarding Claim 15, US’930 teaches that the method comprises heat-treating the reinforced fabric to cure it [0011-0013,0026,0056], including with a heating element [0056]. US’930 also teaches an oven to apply heat to bond the veil to the unidirectional fabric before forming the reinforced fabric (including the coating). The combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 fails to teach an oven to apply the heat to cure it. However, an oven was a conventional apparatus at the time of invention for supplying heat to objects, including to layered fabrics (clear from US’930), with a heating element. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 by heat-treating the reinforced fabric using an oven to cure the reinforced fabric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of US’930 in view of WO’727 fails to teach or fairly suggest that preparing the modified veil layer includes pretreating the nonwoven veil carrier to impart a positive or negative charge onto the nonwoven veil carrier.
Regarding Claim 12, 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.
In addition, no prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, which teaches or fairly suggests every limitation of Claims 11-13 or 16-20 has been identifies as of the time of this Office Action.
Conclusion
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
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