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
The amendment filed on 10/2/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 require the structural reinforcing portion to include at least one planar portion, at least one non-planar portion, and reinforcing fibers having continuous fibers and discontinuous fibers consolidated in a thermoplastic resin, wherein the at least one planar portion includes “only the continuous fibers” and the at least one non-planar portion includes “only the discontinuous fibers.” The specification is silent regarding at least one planar portion including “only” continuous fibers (the claims exclude the claimed thermoplastic resin while also including the claimed thermoplastic resin). The specification is also silent regarding least one non-planar portion including “only” discontinuous fibers (the claims exclude the claimed thermoplastic resin while also including the claimed thermoplastic resin).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21 and 22 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.
Claims 1 and 14 require the at least one planar portion include “only the continuous fibers” of the structural reinforcing portion but said continuous fibers appear to be “consolidated in a thermoplastic resin.” Similarly, claims 1 and 14 require the at least one non-planar portion include “only the discontinuous fibers” of the structural reinforcing portion but said discontinuous fibers are “consolidated in a thermoplastic resin.” It is unclear how at least one planar portion can include thermoplastic resin but include “only the continuous fibers” (exclude thermoplastic resin). It is also unclear how the at least one non-planar portion can include thermoplastic resin but include “only the discontinuous fibers” (exclude thermoplastic resin).
Claims 1 and 14 are further indefinite because the claims require “reinforcing fibers having continuous fibers and discontinuous fibers consolidated in a thermoplastic resin.” It is unclear if the continuous fibers are consolidated in a thermoplastic resin or if only the discontinuous fibers are required to be consolidated in a thermoplastic resin.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2017/0043552 to Lenzi in view of USPAP 2024/0047809 to Arai and/or USPAP 2020/0238634 to Braley, and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2023/0057297 to Fraunhofer and/or USPAP 2022/0338394 to Aoi.
Claims 1 and 14, Lenzi discloses a multi-layer and multi-functional composite structure, comprising: a structural reinforcing portion (thermally insulating material of Lenzi) configured to inherently provide structural support and including at least one planar portion and reinforcing fibers consolidated in a thermoplastic resin; a protecting portion (protective prepreg material of Lenzi) arranged on one side of the structural reinforcing portion and configured to provide at least one of thermal blocking and fire resistance; and a shielding portion (the structural composite material of Lenzi) arranged on an opposite side of the structural reinforcing portion and inherently configured to shield electromagnetic interference (EMI) (see entire document including [0021]-[0025], [0036], [0060], [00662], [0071]-[0075] and [0091]-[0095]). The structural reinforcing portion of Lenzi is inherently configured to shield electromagnetic interference (EMI) because it may be a nonwoven or woven fabric of carbon or graphite fibers [0072].
Lenzi does not appear to mention forming the structure with planar portions and non-planar portions, wherein the planar portions only include continuous fibers and the non-planar portions only include discontinuous fibers, but Arai discloses that it is known in the art to construct a fiber-reinforced composite with planar portions and non-planar portions wherein the planar portions may include only continuous fibers and the non-planar portions may only include discontinuous fibers (see entire document including the Figures, [0074], [0076], [0093], [0094], [0106], [0107], [0121], [0122], [0172], [0174], [0236] and [0237]). Arai discloses that it is known in the art that when discontinuous fibers are used formability is improved and it is easy to form a complicated molded product compared with using only continuous fibers [0076]. In addition, Braley discloses that it is known in the art to construct a fiber-reinforced composite with planar portions and non-planar portions wherein the planar portions may include only continuous fibers and the non-planar portions may only include discontinuous fibers (see entire document including the Figures). Braley discloses that it is known in the art that composite parts may benefit from placement of continuous fibers in areas of high mechanical loading and that discontinuous fibers provide design and cost advantages over continuous fibers [0132]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make different portions of the composite structure of Lenzi with continuous or discontinuous fibers, such as claimed, because it is known that when discontinuous fibers are used formability is improved and it is easy to form a complicated molded product and that composite parts may benefit from placement of continuous fibers in areas of high mechanical loading and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 2 and 14, the structural reinforcing portion and at least one of the protecting portion and the shielding portion are consolidated in the thermoplastic resin in a single step [0097]. Plus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Claims 3 and 15, the structural reinforcing portion, the protecting portion, and the shielding portion are consolidated in the thermoplastic resin in a single step [0097]. Plus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Claims 4 and 16, the protecting portion includes an intumescent material [0040].
Claims 5 and 16, the intumescent material includes an adhesive layer configured to attach the intumescent material to the structural reinforcing portion ([0039], [0049] and [0074]).
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 16, Lenzi does not appear to mention the protecting portion including a mica plate attached to the protecting portion but Fraunhofer discloses that it is known in the art to attach a mica plate using a binder to provide fire protection (see entire document including [0013]-[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach a mica plate to the protecting portion using a binder to provide increased fire protection.
Claims 7 and 17, the protecting portion includes a fabric, a thermal material, and a fire resistant material ([0021]-[0025] and [0032]).
Claims 8 and 16, the protecting portion includes a ceramic layer [0066].
Claim 9, at least one of the protecting portion and the shielding portion comprises a coating [0071]. Specifically, the shielding portion may be considered a single prepreg ply that is coated by a second prepreg ply [0071].
Claims 10 and 18, the shielding portion is selected from a group consisting of a metal mesh, a discontinuous fabric, a coated veil, a metal sheet, a perforated metal sheet, and a metal-coated fiber-filled material [0072]. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make each layer with any suitable fibrous material, such as continuous or discontinuous, because Levin discloses that it is conventional in the composite material art to use continuous and/or discontinuous fibers [0094] and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 11 and 19, the structural reinforcing portion comprises discontinuous fibers selected from a group consisting of chopped fibers, unidirectional tape, nonwoven mat, and directed long fibers ([0094] and [0098]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make each layer with any suitable fibrous material, such as continuous or discontinuous, because Levin discloses that it is conventional in the composite material art to use continuous and/or discontinuous fibers [0094] and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 12 and 19, the thermoplastic resin is selected from a group consisting of polyether ether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyphenylene sulfide, and polyether imide [0061].
Claims 21 and 22, Lenzi discloses that structural composite material (corresponding to the claimed a shielding portion) may be a woven (perforated) fabric (sheet) of reinforcement fibers such as carbon [0072]. Lenzi does not appear to specifically mention the use of metal fibers as the reinforcement fibers but Aoi discloses that carbon fibers and metal fibers are both known reinforcing fiber materials (see entire document including [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the structural composite material of Lenzi from woven metal fibers because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights