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 submitted on January 4, 2024, has been entered. Claims 1 – 14 have been amended and claims 15 – 19 have been added. Therefore, claims 1 – 19 are pending.
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.
Claims 1 – 19 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.
Claim 1 recites an “electroconductive mat consists of an electroconductive knitted fabric capable of homogeneously distributing electrical charges over an entire wherein the electroconductive knitted fabric comprises at least one electroconductive metal filament yarn” which is indefinite. The electroconductive mat is defined as consisting of a knitted fabric which comprises as least one electroconductive metal filament yarn. Thus, the knitted fabric is not limited to a specific construction and it is unclear what is being excluded by closed “consisting of” language. Is the mat just a single knitted fabric? Is the knit fabric modified in some manner to form the claimed mat? Can the knitted fabric comprise multiple types of yarns and other coatings or layers in addition to the metal yarn? If so it is not clear how the ”consisting of” language excludes additional materials or layers from the claimed mat. In fact, the dependent claims add specific knit patterns, different materials, and thermoplastic and/or thermosetting polymer material, in addition to reciting different end uses which can also have different layers are structures. Thus, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 2 – 19 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of examination the term “consisting of” is read as comprising meaning that additional layers and materials can be combined with the knit metal fabric.
The term “(UD)” or “UD” in claim 4 is indefinite. It is unclear if the abbreviation is always referencing a unidirectional yarn or specifically an electroconductive unidirectional yarn. Further, the abbreviation is written with and without parenthesis. It is unclear if this is done for a reason. It is suggested that the terms are written out with complete words. Claims 5 and 6 are similarly rejected.
The phrase “the plurality of metal UD yarns consist of a bundle of twelve copper yarns” in claim 6 is indefinite. Does plurality of metal UD yarns include multiple metal UD yarns and each of those metal UD yarns include twelve copper yarns? Or is the does the fabric only include 12 copper yarns in the unidirectional direction?
Claim 12 is indefinite. Claim 12 recites “the composite material according to claim 1” but claim 1 does not mention a “composite material”. How is the term composite material defined since it is not referenced in claim 1? Further, claim 12 also recites that the composite material includes a mat according to claim 1. Claim 12 cannot refer to previous claim multiple times. Further, if claim 12 is referencing the electroconductive mat of claim 1, then claim 12 should recite “the electroconductive mat of claim 1 to make it clear that claim 12 requires the same mat of claim 1 and not a different mat. Claim 9 mentions a composite material, but requires a thermoplastic and/or thermosetting polymer, which does not appear to be required in the composite material of claim 12 that has reinforcing fibers combined with the mat of claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what the composition of “the composite material” is required to be for the purposes of claim 12. For purposes of examination, the “composite material” is considered to be the reinforcing fibers and the electroconductive mat of claim 1.
Claim 13 is indefinite. The claim depends on both claim 12 and claim 1. Claims can only refer to multiple claims in the alternative. Further, the composite material of claim 12 is the electroconductive mat and reinforcing fibers. Claim 13 recites the composite material is obtained by superimposing a mat according to claim 1 and one or more knitted fabrics of reinforcement yarns. It is unclear if the claim is adding another mat layer and layer of reinforcement yarns to the composite material of claim 12 comprising a knitted fabric with a metal yarn combined with reinforcing fibers. How many reinforcing layers and electroconductive mat layers are present in the composite material of claim 13?
Claims 14, 17, 18, and 19 are indefinite. While the claims all include a preamble defined as a “method” the claims fails to recite any specific methods steps for how the product in the recited claim is being modified to produce a one specific end product as compared to just placing the electroconductive mat of claim 1 on one of the claimed products. The claims have been kept with the product claims 1 – 13, 15, and 16 since the claims fails to recite any substantial method steps and are reciting possible end products of the claimed electroconductive mat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 14 – 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2263581.
RU 2263581 discloses known lightning protection systems include a knitted mesh of steel or copper filaments with a diameter of 0.03 to 0.08 mm (page 2, 2nd paragraph). Thus, claims 1 – 3 and 15 are anticipated. Further, the knitted mesh are known to be used in lightning protection systems used in aircraft fuselage (abstract page 2, paragraph 1). Thus, claim 14 is anticipated.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 17 recites that the mat of claim 14 is used in a wall of a vehicle or airplane without adding further method of using or structural recitations in the claim. Thus, claim 17 is rejected with claim 14.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202014009963.
DE 202014009963 discloses a knit fabric comprising stitch threads (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and unidirectional threads (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) (abstract). The metallic mesh fabric is conductive and can be used to conduct heat or as shielding material (page 4, paragraph 22). Additionally, the yarns can include monofilaments, rovings, bundles of fibers, yarns, threads and/or wires (page 4, paragraph 2). Both the mesh yarns and the unidirectional yarns can be made from synthetic and/or metallic threads (Page 4, paragraphs 20 – 22). Further, at least one of the mesh threads or the unidirectional threads are metallically conductive (abstract). Thus, claim 1, 4, 5, and 14 are anticipated.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 17 recites that the mat of claim 14 is used in a wall of a vehicle or airplane without adding further method of using or structural recitations in the claim. Thus, claim 17 is rejected with claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014009963 in view of RU 2263581.
The features of DE 20214009963 have been set forth above. While DE 202014009963 discloses that conductive metal yarns or wires are used in the invention, DE 202014009963 fails to disclose the types of metal used in the yarns. RU 2263581 is drawn to conductive metal knit fabrics. RU 2263581 discloses that it is known to make conductive knit fabric with copper or steel filaments (page 2, 2nd paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use copper or steel filaments as the conductive metal filaments in the fabric of DE 202014009963. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are rejected.
Further, RU 2263581 discloses that the copper filaments can have a diameter of 0.03 to 0.08 mm (page 2, 2nd paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to choose filament sizes that are known for use in making knit fabric as taught by RU 2263581 in the fabric of DE 20214009963. Thus, claim 15 is rejected.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014009963.
The features of DE 202014009963 have been set forth above. While DE 202014009963 suggests that the yarns can be made from monofilaments, bundles of fibers, rovings, or threads, yarns, or wires, DE 20214009963 fails to disclose specific size of the bundles. However, one of ordinary skill would understand the structure of a bundle and choose a bundle size and filament size that is suited for the end use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to a bundle of 12 copper yarns of between 0.02 to 2 mm in diameter, since 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 for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected.
Further, DE 202014009963 discloses that the knit fabric can include the unidirectional and stitch threads being chosen of mutually different materials and at least one of the stitch threads or unidirectional threads include a metallically conductive thread (abstract). The unidirectional filaments can be chosen from carbon fibers, glass fibers, basalt fibers, synthetic fibers, hybrid fibers, or metal wires (page 4, paragraph 23). And the mesh fibers can be chosen from synthetic or metallic yarn such as polyester (page 4, paragraph 22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose at least two different electroconductive materials to make the unidirectional and stitch threads from since DE 202014009963 teaches that the threads can be chosen individually from different materials. Thus, claim 7 is rejected.
Claim(s) 8 – 10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014009963 in view of Clereq et al. (US 2002/0182961).
The features of DE 202014009963 have been set forth above. While DE 202014009963 discloses a knit fabric that includes metallic threads and unidirectional threads mixed with stitching threads, DE 20214009963 fails to teach making the fabric into a composite materials with a polymeric matrix material reinforced by the knitted fabric. Clereq et al. is drawn to a reinforced fabric, particularly a fabric including metal cords and a thermoplastic material (paragraph 4). The fabric includes thermoplastic materials that fills the spaces between the metal fibers of the fabric (paragraph 9). The thermoplastic material must be at least 40% of the volume, preferably at least 50% of the volume of the total fabric (paragraph 9). The reinforcing fabric can be woven, knitted, or braided (paragraph 39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reinforce the knitted fabric of DE 202014009963 with a thermoplastic polymer comprising at least 40% of the volume of the product to be used as a reinforced article as taught by Clereq et al. Thus, claims 8 – 10 are rejected.
Further, the unidirectional fibers of DE 202014009963 are considered to be reinforcing fibers. Thus, claims 12 and 16 are rejected.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claims 18 and 19 recite that the mat of claim 9 is used in a wall of a vehicle or airplane without adding further method of using or structural recitations in the claim. Thus, claims 18 and 19 are rejected with claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20214009963 and Clereq et al., as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Taylor et al. (7,972,983).
The features of DE 202014009963 and Clereq et al. have been set forth above. DE 20214009963 and Clereq et al. fails to teach using thermosetting matrix in the reinforced fabric. Taylor et al. is drawn to reinforced fabric. The reinforced fabric can include knit or woven or unidirectional fabric (column 8, lines 65 – 67). Further, the reinforcing materials can include a variety of matric materials such as thermosettable, thermoset, and thermoplastic resins (column 1, line 65 – column 2, line 2). Additionally, Taylor et al. discloses that one desired embodiment comprises an epoxy resin system (column 9, lines 30 – 40). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use epoxy resin in the polymer material of the composite material to form the reinforced fabric with the knit fabric of DE 202014009963. Thus, claims 11 is rejected.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014009963 and Clereq et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Dumont et al. (US 2020/0290296).
The features of DE 202014009963 and Clereq et al. have been set forth above. DE 202014009963 and Clereq et al. fail to teach using additional layers of reinforcing materials. Dumont et al. discloses that reinforcements can be obtained in different way including by adding mineral fibers in a matrix or by using additional reinforcing fabric made of reinforcing fibers (paragraph 16). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a reinforcement fabric can have reinforcing layers or fibers added to composite to obtained desired reinforcing properties. Thus, claims 13 is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
April 18, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights