DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 6, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 16, 18, 24, and 26 are amended, claims 1-15 are cancelled, and claim 31 is new, resulting in claims 16-31 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the filling material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, 22-23, 25, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218)1 in view of Hayes (US 3565125)1.
With respect to claims 16-17, 22-23, 25, and 27-30, Noyes teaches a completed element 21 composed of coextensive parallel outer plies or sheets 22 and 23, having members 24 mounted therebetween and oriented at approximately right angles to the plies (col. 2, lines 52-57). The member utilizes a regular pattern of distribution of the columnar members (linking structure comprising stays), and it is understood that the length of the spacing thereof may be varied according to the desired strength of the member (col. 3, lines 55-60). In an embodiment shown in Figure 17 the outer ply 63 is a continuous member having a curvature and the central stiffener 61 has members 62 (stay) mounted that are of different lengths to conform to the shape desired (wherein at least some of the m stays of the linking structure have an at-rest length that is different from a mean h̅m of the at-rest length of stays) (col. 5, lines 8-11). The product may be used as a building panel (col. 1, lines 66-72).
The columnar members (stays) may be plastic, such as polystyrene, nylon or polyester; refractory, such as glass, asbestos, or ceramic; metal, such as brass, copper, steel, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten, or aluminum; animal such as hog bristle; vegetable such as sisal; or other materials according to the end use (col. 2, lines 60-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to try the different materials of the columnar members in order to determine which provides the desired strength (see e.g., col. 3, lines 55-60).
It further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the heights of the longest columnar members and the shortest columnar members and the elongation at break through selection of the columnar material to fulfill the claimed relationship in claim 16 and the claimed mean stay height in claim 29. One would have been motivated to provide a difference in height which provides the desired final shape without adversely affecting the strength of the final member while also providing a columnar member that provides the necessary strength. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Noyes is silent as to the plies being woven and plastically deformable.
Hayes teaches a dual wall containment fabric having integrally woven connection points (col. 2, lines 3-5). The fabric layers are woven (col. 3, lines 16-32) and the materials of the warp and weft yarns may be nylon (col. 4, lines 48-52).
Since both Noyes and Hayes teach construction panels comprising dual fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plies of Noyes to be a nylon woven because woven fabrics are known in the art as suitable for fabric construction panels and provide the predictable result of a fabric panel suitable for use for construction and related purposes. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to the woven fabric being plastically deformable, as described above Hayes teaches the use of nylon woven fabric is suitable for dual layered construction fabric. Instant claim 25 identifies polyamide as a suitable material for the woven fabrics. Therefore, the nylon (polyamide) woven fabric of Noyes in view of Hayes is interpreted as meeting the definition of “plastic deformation” provided on page 3, lines 10-12 of the specification as filed.
With respect to claim 18, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. The columnar members can be organized into groups based on their height. For example, each group comprises columnar members of the same height. In Fig. 18 a group can be defined by each row of columnar members.
Claim(s) 19-21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218)2 in view of Hayes (US 3565125)1 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pehr (US 4409271)1.
With respect to claims 19-21 and 31, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Noyes in view of Hayes is silent as to a filling material being between the plies.
Pehr teaches a lightweight construction element comprising a fabric backing (col. 1, lines 6-8). The fabric backing consists of an untrimmed velvet fabric comprising vertical pile yarns linking two fabric webs to hold the webs at a predetermined distance while the internal space of the velvet fabric is filled with a pressurizing medium (col. 2, lines 13-24). The vertical pile yarns reliably prevent bulging out of the fabric webs during the filling process and after its conclusion (col. 2, lines 13-24). Pressurizing the construction element provides a stable structure (col. 3, lines 25-28). A hardenable plastic foam (expanded material) may be used as the pressurizing medium to ensure adequate dimensional stability and a relatively low weight (col. 2, lines 34-40). The foam may be polyurethane foam (col. 3, lines 30-32). The fabric webs are provided with a coating impermeable to air in order to allow the internal space to be pressurized and made into a stable structure (col. 3, lines 18-32).
Since both Noyes in view of Hayes and Pehr teach plies connected by vertical yarns for construction panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction panel of Noyes in view of Hayes to have impermeable woven plies and to be pressurized by polyurethane foam in order to stabilize the structure and provide adequate dimensional stability at a relatively low weight.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 3328218)3 in view of Hayes (US 3565125)1 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Roell (US 5589245)1.
With respect to claim 26, Noyes in view of Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Noyes in view of Hayes is silent as to one of the woven plies comprising a material that is either fire-retardant through its nature or by having a fire-retardant treatment.
Roell teaches a textile spacer material consisting of at least two covering layers which are joined by a pile thread structure (col. 1, lines 41-43). Roell further teaches the spacer fabric may be treated to be resistant to environmental effects such as heat (fire) or aggressive chemical substances so that it can be used in industrial cladding or linings (col. 5, lines 29-35).
Since both Noyes in view of Hayes and Roell teach spacer fabrics for use in industry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the spacer fabric of Noyes in view of Hayes, including the woven plies, to be fire resistant in order to ensure its safe use in industrial settings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and the specification in the response received on July 6, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 16-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed July 6, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s submitted arguments in the response filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the response Applicant submits that various statements made by the Examiner are conclusory assertions and requested evidence:
“The member utilizes a regular pattern of distribution of the columnar members (linking structure comprising stays)…” See Office Action, p.5
Paragraph 19 of the previous Office Action identified col. 3, lines 55-60 of Noyes as teaching a regular pattern of distribution of columnar members. The columnar members were identified as equivalent to the claimed linking structure comprising stays.
“To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to try the different materials of the columnar members in order to determine which provides the desired strength…” See id. at p. 6
MPEP 2143(I)(E) outlines the requirements for “obvious to try” KSR rationale. (1) a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art. As identified in paragraph 20 of the previous office action, col. 3, lines 55-60 of Noyes identifies the strength of the columnar member is an important consideration to be varied according to the desired strength. (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem. As identified in paragraph 20 of the previous office action, col. 2, lines 60-65 of Noyes provides a finite list of possible materials suitable for use as the columnar members. (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Since a finite list of materials is provided by Noyes and methods of bonding the columnar materials to the plies are disclosed by Noyes, the ordinary artisan has a reasonable expectation of success pursuing the known potential solutions in order to achieve the desired strength of the final element. Therefore the burden of proof required for an “obvious to try” position has been met by the previous Office Action.
The optimization position presented on page 6 of the Office Action.
The optimization rationale relies only on information provided in the prior art. As described in paragraph 19 of the previous office action, Noyes describes how the length of the columnar members affect the strength and the contour of the final product (col. 3, lines 55-63 and col. 5, lines 8-11). It is also known that the different materials listed in col. 2, lines 60-65 of Noyes will necessarily have different strengths and elongations, acknowledged by Noyes at least at col. 3, lines 55-60. Therefore, the motivation used in the optimization position relies only on information from the prior art.
The simple substitution rationale provided on page 7 of the Office Action.
MPEP 2143(I)(B) outlines the requirements for simple substitution KSR rationale. (1) a finding that the prior art contained a product which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components. As identified in paragraph 22 of the previous office action, Noyes is silent as to the plies being woven and plastically deformable. (2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The previous Office Action identifies in paragraph 23 that it is known in the art from Hayes to used woven nylon fabrics for dual wall containment fabrics. (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. As explained in paragraph 24 of the previous office action, since both Noyes and Hayes teach construction panels comprising dual fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plies of Noyes to be a nylon woven because nylon woven fabrics are known in the art as suitable for fabric construction panels and provide the predictable result of a fabric panel suitable for use in construction and related purposes. Therefore the burden of proof for a simple substitution position is met by the previous Office Action.
On pages 13-14 Applicant submits that various limitations of the dependent claims were not addressed by the rejections:
“..heights hi of the stays are distributed periodically in at least one of the first and second main directions of the first woven fabric.” See claim 17.
As stated in paragraph 19 of the previous Office Action, Noyes teaches the members utilizes a regular pattern of distribution of the columnar members in col. 3, lines 55-60. The columnar members are identified as the claimed stays, and the being distributed in a regular pattern is equivalent to the claimed being distributed periodically. As suggested in paragraph 24 of the previous Office Action it would have been obvious in view of Hayes to use woven fabric as the plies of Noyes. A woven fabric necessarily has a first and second direction. Therefore the combination of Noyes in view of Hayes provides stays periodically distributed in at least one of the first and second main directions of the first woven fabric.
The limitations of amended claim 18.
Paragraph 26 of the previous Office Action addresses the limitation of claim 18. Particularly, the rejection of claim 18 refers to the rejection of claim 16, which explains that Noyes teaches that the columnar members have different heights to conform to the shape desired (Noyes; col. 5, lines 8-11). The rejection of claim 18 suggests organizing the columnar members into groups based on their height. As such there is at least 2 groups of stays wherein the stays in each group have the same height. Since the groups are organized by height, if the first group is defined as j and the second group is defined as k, by definition hj will not equal hk. For example, the rejection of claim 18 referred to Fig. 18 of Noyes and states that a group can be defined be each row of columnar members. This results in 5 groups, wherein the columnar members in each group have the same height, and the height compared between groups is necessarily different.
“…the second woven fabric is deformable in at least one of the first and second main directions of the second woven fabric” See claim 22.
As discussed in paragraphs 23-24 of the previous Office Action, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plies of Noyes to be a nylon woven fabric. As described in the rejection of claim 16 at paragraph 19 of the previous Office Action, Noyes teaches the use of two plies or sheets 22 and 23. Therefore the combination provides first and second woven fabrics.
As discussed in paragraph 25 of the previous Office Action, nylon is identified by the instant application as a suitable material to provide plastic deformation of the woven fabric. Therefore, the nylon woven fabric of the prior art is expected to exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention.
“…the second woven fabric deforms plastically.” See claim 23.
As discussed in paragraph 25 of the previous Office Action, nylon is identified by the instant application as a suitable material to provide plastic deformation of the woven fabric. Therefore, the nylon woven fabric of the prior art is expected to exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention.
The limitations of amended claim 24.
Claim 24 was only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action. As mentioned above, the 112(b) rejection of claim 24 has been withdrawn. As such claim 24 is now 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.
“…wherein the mean at rest length of the stays is greater than 8 mm.” See claim 29.
As described in paragraph 21 of the previous Office Action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the mean stay height to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a difference in height which provides the desired final shape without adversely affecting the strength of the final member.
The limitations of claim 30.
As described in paragraph 19 of the previous Office Action, Noyes teaches the product may be used as a building panel (col. 1, lines 66-72), which is considered an assembly.
On page 15 of the response Applicant submits that the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed mechanical behavior of plastic deformation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, nylon is identified by the instant application as a suitable material to provide plastic deformation of the woven fabric. Therefore, the nylon woven fabric of the prior art is expected to exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention.
On pages 15-16 of the response Applicant submits that use of the same material is not sufficient to meet the limitation of plastic deformation.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is respectfully submitted that Applicant has not identified the additional material and/or structure required to meet the limitation of plastic deformation. Applicant does not appear to use a specific polyamide that is modified in some way, nor is a specific weave structure identified that is required to provide plastic deformation to a woven fabric. Absent evidence to the contrary, based on the facts disclosed by the Applicant and provided by the prior art it is reasonable to presume that a woven fabric made of nylon fibers is plastically deformable.
On pages 16-17 of the response Applicant submits that the references do not teach the claimed height differential and elongation at break relationship and the relationship cannot be optimized without improper hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As explained above, the optimization rationale relies only on information provided in the prior art. As described in paragraph 19 of the previous office action, Noyes describes how the length of the columnar members affect the strength and the contour of the final product (col. 3, lines 55-63 and col. 5, lines 8-11). It is also known that the different materials listed in col. 2, lines 60-65 of Noyes will necessarily have different strengths and elongations, acknowledged by Noyes at least at col. 3, lines 55-60. Therefore, the motivation used in the optimization position relies only on information from the prior art.
On page 18 of the response Applicant submits that even assuming that plastic deformation were taught, the Office still does not show where Noyes and Hayes teaches the above limitation related to a distance between two points of attachment of each stay i is substantially equal to its at-rest length.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is respectfully submitted that in the claims, the at-rest length of each stay and the plastic deformability of the woven sheets are not interrelated. The prior art panel is in an “at-rest” state when it is contoured. Therefore the distance between two points of attachment of each stay is defined as its at-rest length, and thus is equivalent to the at-rest length.
On pages 18-19 of the response Applicant submits that the disclosure is clear that “the shape of the surface obtained after shaping is dictated by the location and height of each stay”. And none of the cited references teaches or even contemplates that result.
These arguments are not persuasive. As identified by Applicant on page 18 of the response, Noyes states that members may be “of different lengths to conform to the shape desired” (Noyes, 5:8-10). Therefore Noyes teaches that the shape of the surface is dictated by the location and the height of each columnar member.
On page 19 of the response Applicant submits that Noyes and Hayes are directed to materially different structures and design objectives, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine these disclosures.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As identified in the rejection of claim 16, Noyes teaches an element comprising parallel outer plies having members mounted therebetween (col. 2, lines 52-57). The product of Noyes may be used as a building panel (col. 1, liens 66-72). Similarly, Hayes teaches a dual wall containment fabric (col. 2, lines 3-5). Both Noyes and Hayes teach construction panels comprising dual fabrics, therefore the ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of Hayes to modify Noyes.
On page 20 of the response Applicant submits that Noyes teaches away from new claim 31 because the members of Noyes do not create a closed core.
These arguments are not persuasive. The section of Noyes reference by Applicant (col. 5, lines 16-20) are with respect to the columnar members in the core of Noyes, however the limitation of claim 31 requires the first and second woven fabrics be impervious to a filling material. The first and second woven fabrics are identified as equivalent to the woven plies of Noyes in view of Hayes. There is nothing in Noyes to suggest that the plies cannot be impervious, only that the core, where the columnar members are located, allows fluid movement. Therefore Noyes does not teach away from claim 31.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights