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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-8 and 21-31 are pending in the application. Claims 9-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-31 have been added.
Amendments to the claims 1 and 8, filed on 3 April 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 3 April 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 3 April 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record over Simonds, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 3 April 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record over Allshouse, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection over Allshouse has been presented below. In that applicant's arguments pertain to the new grounds of rejection, they have been addressed below in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant's argue that Allshouse fails to disclose the first reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented non-parallel to the longitudinal axis, and the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Allshouse discloses a bow limb comprising stacked layers of fabric, each layer comprising a pair of woven fibers, wherein one layer has at least one fiber being oriented to run in the longitudinal direction of the bow limb, and another sheet oriented at an angle of 1° or more and 90° or less with respect to the previous sheet, wherein the sheets can be of unidirectional fibers instead of woven fibers ([Col. 2: li. 4-18], [Col. 5: li. 40-58], [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse). (That is, at least two layers of unidirectional fibers oriented in the same direction as the fibers of the woven sheet, would replace the woven sheet.)
Therefore, in light of the applicant's arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections are still valid.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the first reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented-- in line 5; for clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the first reinforcing fibers extend of the first layer and are oriented".
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented-- in line 8; for clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "the second reinforcing fibers extend of the second layer and are oriented".
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites --a length of the device-- in lines 1 to 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the[[a]] length of the device".
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --a full length of the device-- in lines 1 to 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the[[a]] full length of the device".
With Regards to Claim 24: Claim 24 recites --non-orthogonal surface-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the non-orthogonal surface"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction-- in line 8. Claim 1 also recites --the first reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction-- in line 5. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "lengthwise direction" in line 8 is the same "lengthwise direction" in line 5; or (2) that said "lengthwise direction" in line 8 is different from said "lengthwise direction" in line 5. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that the latter limitation applies.
Claims 2-8 and 21-31, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the first reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction-- in line 5. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claim is rendered indefinite because the limitation can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "lengthwise direction" is with respect to the first reinforcing fibers; or (2) that said "lengthwise direction" is with respect to the first layer. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that the latter interpretation applies, and the limitation will be treated to read as "the first reinforcing fibers extend of the first layer".
Claims 2-8 and 21-31, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction-- in line 8. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, the claim is rendered indefinite because the limitation can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "lengthwise direction" is with respect to the second reinforcing fibers; or (2) that said "lengthwise direction" is with respect to the second layer. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that the latter interpretation applies, and the limitation will be treated to read as "the second reinforcing fibers extend of the second layer".
Claims 2-8 and 21-31, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hallander et al. (US 2017/0129207 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hallander teaches an aircraft (ref. #1) comprising a wing (ref. #3) comprising an upper skin (ref. #5) of the aircraft wing being made of a composite material (ref. #7), wherein the composite material comprises a matrix material and micro-sized reinforcement element (i.e., fiber) distributions, each being arranged in a respective ply provided on top of each other, and nano-sized reinforcement elements between and/or inside the micro-sized reinforcement element distribution and/or on at least one side of the outer surface, and wherein the nano-sized reinforcement elements are impregnated with a resin, and wherein the resin impregnating the micro-sized reinforcement elements and the nano-sized reinforcement elements are of the same or different composition (e.g., a thermoset) ([0242]-[0249], [0252], and [0254] of Hallander). Hallander further teaches that the direction of the micro-sized reinforcement element in one ply can be the same or different from those in an adjacent ply (figures 3, 5A, 5C, 16B to 16C, and [0272]-[0277] of Hallander). (In the instant case, the orientation direction of at least one ply of Hallander (i.e., "lengthwise direction") can be along the longitudinal axis of the body, as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 2: Hallander teaches that the second reinforcing fibers are different from the first reinforcing fibers ([0031] and [0265] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 3: Hallander teaches that a tensile strength of the second reinforcing fibers is greater than a tensile strength of the first reinforcing fibers ([0031] and [0265] of Hallander). (In the instant case, because the fibers can be made of different material, there would exist an instance where the tensile strength of the second fibers is greater than those of the first.)
Regarding Claim 4: Hallander teaches that the first reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers (figure 16C and [0273] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 5: Hallander teaches that the first reinforcing fibers extend along the length of the device (figures 3, 5A, 5C, [0242]-[0249], [0252], [0253], [0272]-[0277] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 21: Hallander teaches that the second reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers (figure 16C and [0273] of Hallander).
Claims 1-7, 21, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johanson et al. (US 20170320293 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Johanson teaches a multiaxial reinforcement comprising multiple (i.e., 2 to 20 layers) plies of parallel unidirectional fibers, each layer in a different orientation or axis (e.g., 0°, +45°, and -45°), in a sandwich construction, wherein the multiaxial reinforcement or at least each of the plies is impregnated with a resin (e.g., thermoset) ([0002], 0011]-[0013], [0016], [0017], [0029], [0031], [0033], [0025], [0068], [0070, [0075], [0080], and [0091] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 2: Johanson teaches that the second reinforcing fibers are different from the first reinforcing fibers ([0017] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 3: Johanson teaches that a tensile strength of the second reinforcing fibers is greater than a tensile strength of the first reinforcing fibers ([0017] of Johanson). (In the instant case, because the fibers can be made of different material, there would exist an instance where the tensile strength of the second fibers is greater than those of the first.)
Regarding Claim 4: Johanson teaches that the first reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers ([0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 5: Johanson teaches that the first reinforcing fibers extend along the length of the device ([0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson). (In the instant case, those fibers in the +45° and -45° are considered to be at least partially extending along the length of the device.)
Regarding Claim 6: Johanson teaches that the second reinforcing fibers extend the full length of the device ([0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 7: Johanson teaches that the first reinforcing fibers have a length that is less than a length of the second reinforcing fibers (figure 4, [0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson). (In the instant case, the width of the ply of second reinforcing fibers limits the length of the first reinforcing fibers.)
Regarding Claim 21: Johanson teaches that the second reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers ([0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 22: Johanson teaches that the longitudinal axis is straight (figure 4, [0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson).
Regarding Claim 27: Johanson teaches that the first layer comprises the a bottom surface of the body, and the second layer comprises a top surface of the body (figure 4, [0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson). (In the instant case, Johanson discloses there can be a number of layers wherein the top is the second layer, and the bottom is the first layer.)
Regarding Claim 29: Johanson teaches that the first reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers, the second reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers ([0011], [0012], [0031], and [0033] of Johanson).
Claims 1, 4-7, 21, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allshouse et al. (US 5,718,212 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Allshouse teaches a bow limb comprising fiber layers comprising woven sheets of fiber encased in homogeneous resin material (e.g., epoxy), wherein the woven sheets include longitudinal fibers located along a longitudinal axis through the length of said bow limb and off-axial fibers oriented at a non-zero angle from said longitudinal fibers, wherein the non-zero angle (ref. "ϴ") can be any angle from 1° or more and 90° or less, and wherein other fabric plies can be used (i.e., unidirectional fibers of a first orientation (i.e., "X") are layered over fibers of a second off-axis orientation (i.e., a non-zero angle of from 1° or more and 90° or less) ([Col. 2: li. 4-18], [Col. 5: li. 40-58], and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse). (In the instant case, Allshouse discloses there being at least one layer having unidirectional fibers oriented in a direction along the lengthwise direction of the bow limb, and that a second layer of unidirectional fibers are stacked thereon at an angle of 1° or more to 90° or less with respect to the orientation direction of the previous layer.)
Regarding Claim 4: Allshouse teaches that the first reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers ([Col. 7: li. 27-36] of Allshouse).
Regarding Claim 5: Allshouse teaches that the first reinforcing fibers extend along the length of the device ([Col. 5: li. 40-58] and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse). (In the instant case, where the angular variation of the off-axis fibers is less than 90°, they would be considered as extending at least partially along a length of the device.)
Regarding Claim 6: Allshouse teaches that the second reinforcing fibers extend the full length of the device ([Col. 2: li. 4-18], [Col. 5: li. 40-58], and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse).
Regarding Claim 7: Allshouse teaches that the first reinforcing fibers have a length that is less than a length of the second reinforcing fibers (figures 4A to 5D, 9B, [Col. 7: li. 44-53], and [Col. 8: li. 10 to Col. 9: li. 5] of Allshouse). (In the instant case, Allshouse's teaching that any of the layers can be used as "partial plies" infers that the sheets can be employed and would not extend the full length of the device. As such, the first reinforcing fibers of the sheets would be cut to have a length less that that of the second reinforcing fibers.)
Regarding Claim 21: Allshouse teaches that the second reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers ([Col. 2: li. 4-18], [Col. 5: li. 40-58], and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse).
Regarding Claim 29: Allshouse teaches the first reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers, and the second reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers ([Col. 2: li. 4-18], [Col. 5: li. 40-58], and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse).
Regarding Claim 31: Allshouse teaches that the device comprises an archery bow limb ([Col. 2: li. 4-18] of Allshouse
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 8, 21, and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallander et al. (US 2017/0129207 A1) in view of Adam (US 2015/0298358 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hallander discloses an aircraft (ref. #1) comprising a wing (ref. #3) comprising an upper skin (ref. #5) of the aircraft wing being made of a composite material (ref. #7), wherein the composite material comprises a matrix material and micro-sized reinforcement element (i.e., fiber) distributions, each being arranged in a respective ply provided on top of each other, and nano-sized reinforcement elements between and/or inside the micro-sized reinforcement element distribution and/or on at least one side of the outer surface, and wherein the nano-sized reinforcement elements are impregnated with a resin, and wherein the resin impregnating the micro-sized reinforcement elements and the nano-sized reinforcement elements are of the same or different composition (e.g., a thermoset) ([0242]-[0249], [0252], and [0254] of Hallander). Hallander further discloses that the direction of the micro-sized reinforcement element in one ply can be the same or different from those in an adjacent ply (figures 3, 5A, 5C, 16B to 16C, and [0272]-[0277] of Hallander). (In the instant case, the orientation direction of at least one ply of Hallander (i.e., "lengthwise direction") can be along the longitudinal axis of the body, as claimed.) Specifically, Hallander provides for --a device comprising: a body comprising a second layer, the body comprising a length and a longitudinal axis; the second layer comprising a second thermoset composite material comprising second reinforcing fibers, the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis--.
Hallander fails to disclose --a body comprising a first layer and a second layer; the second layer comprising a second thermoset composite material comprising second reinforcing fibers, the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis; wherein the first reinforcing fibers are oriented at a non-zero angle to the second reinforcing fibers--.
Adam discloses a composite fiber-containing material, for aerospace applications, comprising a plurality of discontinuous fibers arranged parallel to one another and arranged on or in a substrate, the fibers being aligned at an angle of less than 20° (e.g., 5°, 4°, 3°, 2°, 1°, or 0.5°) with respect to a planar surface of the substrate, that the fibers are covered (embedded) in a resin (e.g., thermoset), and that the opposing end is covered by a resin (figures 4A to 4B, [0002], [0022], [0025], [0029], [0036], [0038], [0040]-[0042], [0048], [0053], [0055]-[0059], [0062], and [0070] of Adam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the composite fiber-containing material of Adam as the second layer of the body of the device disclosed by Hallander in order to have --a body comprising a first layer and a second layer; the second layer comprising a second thermoset composite material comprising second reinforcing fibers, the second reinforcing fibers extending in a lengthwise direction and oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis; wherein the first reinforcing fibers are oriented at a non-zero angle to the second reinforcing fibers--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the composite fiber-containing material of Adam as the second layer of the body of the device disclosed by Hallander, from the stand-point of having a structure that can withstand tensile forces and can support a load ([0048] and [0070] of Adam). (In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced or incorporated the angled fiber layer of Adam, with or between the fiber layers of the body disclosed by Hallander, to improve overall tensile strength. More specifically, such that the angled fibers run in the same direction as the longitudinal axis of the body, but at an angle thereto.)
Regarding Claim 2: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the second reinforcing fibers are different from the first reinforcing fibers ([0031] and [0265] of Hallander; [0036] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 3: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that a tensile strength of the second reinforcing fibers is greater than a tensile strength of the first reinforcing fibers ([0031] and [0265] of Hallander; [0036] Adam). (In the instant case, because the fibers can be made of different material, there would exist an instance where the tensile strength of the second fibers is greater than those of the first.)
Regarding Claim 4: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the first reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers ([0022], [0042], and [0056] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 5: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the first reinforcing fibers extend along the length of the device (figures 4A to 4B of Adam).
Regarding Claim 6: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the second reinforcing fibers extend along the full length of the device (figures 3, 5A, 5C, [0242]-[0249], [0252], [0253], [0272]-[0277] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 8: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the non-zero angle can be about 1° or about 2° ([0048] of Adam); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range of --between 1 and 2 degrees--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 21: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the second reinforcing fibers comprise unidirectional reinforcing fibers (figure 16C and [0273] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 23: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the fist layer comprising a non-orthogonal surface oriented at an angle to the first reinforcing fibers (figures 4A to 4B and [0048] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 24: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the non-orthogonal surface comprising exposed end portions of the first reinforcing fibers (figures 4A to 4B, [0044], [0045], and [0048] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 25: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the second layer contacting the non-orthogonal surface (figures 4A to 4B, [0044], [0045], and [0048] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 26: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the second reinforcing fibers oriented parallel to the non-orthogonal surface (figures 4A to 4B, [0044], [0045], and [0048] of Adam; figure 3 and [0244]-[0246] of Hallander).
Regarding Claim 27: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the first layer comprising a bottom surface of the body, the second layer comprising a top surface of the body (figure 3 of Hallander; figures 4A to 4B of Adam).
Regarding Claim 28: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the non-zero angle is about 20°C or less (e.g., about 5°C, about 4°C, about 3°, about 2°, about 1°, or about 0.5°) ([0048] of Adam); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range of --5 degrees or less--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 29: Hallander in view of Adam discloses that the first reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers, the second reinforcing fibers consisting of unidirectional fibers (figure 16C and [0273] of Hallander ; [0022], [0042], and [0056] of Adam).
Regarding Claim 30: Hallander in view of Adam discloses the first layer comprising a non-orthogonal surface oriented non-parallel to the first reinforcing fibers, and the second layer upon the non-orthogonal surface (figures 4A to 4B, [0044], [0045], and [0048] of Adam).
The limitation is considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" limitation. As such, only the structure implied by the process steps and/or the distinctive structural characteristics imparted by the process steps to the final product have been given weight. See MPEP §2113(I).
Claims 8 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allshouse et al. (US 5,718,212 A) as applied to claim 1 above.
Allshouse is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claims 8 and 28: Allshouse discloses that the nonzero angle is from 1° or more to 90° or less ([Col. 5: li. 40-58] and [Col. 7: li. 7 to Col. 8: li. 9] of Allshouse); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --between 1 and 2 degrees-- {instant claim 8} and --5 degrees or less-- {instant claim 28}. Allshouse differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Allshouse, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights