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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-16 and 21-24 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the process of claim 1 is the only way to make the product of claim 17 and that the product of claim 17 cannot be made via any other process. This is not found persuasive because the product is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113 I). Therefore it does not matter that the product states that the outer surface is covered with the fluid barrier material, when a product infused from within and would result in the same product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (U.S. Patent 11053615; already of record, herein Stewart), as evidenced by Lindsay (U.S. Patent 1523813), Lowthian (U.S. Patent 3934064; already of record), Pedlow (U.S. Patent 4273821), Lazzara (WO 8605738), or Choi (KR 20040067452). Regarding claims 1, 2, and 16:
Stewart teaches impregnating a shaped knit fabric with a settable impregnate which is then cured (column 14, line 64 through column 15, line 10). Stewart teaches this make a composite seal (Abstract), the knit fabric is a fire barrier textile (firewall: column 6, lines 55-67), and the settable impregnate is a liquid (column 15, lines 5-7).
Regarding the result of the process, Stewart explicitly states that the product can be used for thermally resistant seals, gaskets, expansion joints, blankets, wiring insulation, tubing/ductwork, piping sleeves, firewalls, insulation for thrust reversers, engine struts and composite fan cowls. Thus Stewart teaches fire and fluid barrier capabilities in the form of at least gaskets and firewalls. Additionally see MPEP 2112.01 I; even if Stewart did not explicitly teach the claimed use, since the materials and structure are the same as claimed, the end result of Stewart would have the needed capabilities.
Stewart does not explicitly state how the fabric is added, but Stewart teaches in column 14, line 64 through column 15, line 10 that “the knit fabric may be infused with the settable impregnate using any suitable liquid-molding process known in the art.” As evidenced by Lindsay (Figure 2), Lowthian (Figures 7-9), Pedlow (Figure 1), Lazzara (Figure 2), or Choi (Figures 1-3) show that resin can added via application to the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the fire barrier material to the surface of the textile. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many ways to add a material to textile, Stewart teaches a general application of a fire barrier material to a fire barrier textile, and Stewart allows for any known application process. Therefore application to the surface is obvious.
Regarding claim 4:
Stewart teaches that the forming is performed prior to the applying (column 14, line 64 through column 15, line 10).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Stewart teaches the knit fabric is constructed (prior to the applying) out of one or more material (e.g. metal in the Abstract, metal and ceramic in column 14, lines 46-63). One of said material is the first subset.
Regarding claim 7:
Stewart teaches flat knitting the textile (column 5, lines 56-57).
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
As seen in Figures 5-7, knitting of one material is performed around a second subset of material which is in a predetermined pattern (wire inlay 520, 620, 720).
Regarding claim 10:
The shape of the wire inlay (520, 620, 720) in Figures 5-7 helps define the spring rate for the seal.
Regarding claim 12:
Stewart teaches the second subset comprises a metallic wire (column 12, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 13:
Stewart teaches heat treating the metal wire to strengthen the material (column 14, lines 46-63)
Regarding claim 14:
On average the second subset has a larger diameter than the first subset (column 10, lines 28-35 and column 12, lines 21-34)
Regarding claim 15:
As seen in Figures 5-7, the density of the knitted material varies along the length due to the wire inlay (520, 620, 720).
Regarding claim 21:
Since Stewart teaches impregnating the knit, Stewart also then teaches penetrating the knit.
Regarding claim 22:
See remarks regarding claims 1 and 21.
Regarding claim 23:
Stewart teaches a sealing member 900 in Figure 9 and the outside can be the disclosed impregnated knot (column 16, line 37-39)
Regarding claim 24:
Stewart teaches that on the outside of sealing member 900 there can have an abrasion resistant wrap 934 (Figure 9, and column 16, lines 5-6 and 47-50)
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart, in view of Huffa et al (U.S. PGPub 2019/0344477; herein Huffa). Regarding claim 3:
As previously discussed, Stewart teaches forming the knit into a shape prior to applying the fluid, but not before. It is noted that Stewart uses the language “may be laid up…prior to impregnation”, thus allowing for the possibility of impregnating before shaping.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huffa teaches that one can do a wet lay-up or a dry lay-up process for the same purpose (paragraph 0029). Wet lay-up is what Stewart teaches, and a dry lay-up is where pre-impregnated material is shaped.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the fluid and then shape, since doing so allows for better penetration of the infiltrating material into the fibers (Huffa, paragraph 0029).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart. Regarding claim 11:
Stewart teaches that the wire knit can be nickel-chromium based alloys (e.g., Inconel® alloys, Inconel® alloy 718), nickel-chromium-molybdenum based alloys, aluminum, stainless steel, such as a low carbon stainless steel, for example, SS316L (column 10, lines 11-20), and that the wire inlays can be selected from the same materials (column 12, lines 21-22) Thus, there is a scenario where the material of the inlay has a higher elastic modulus than that of the mesh.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the needed material based on the desired properties of the end product, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07), and in this instance Stewart teaches that the inlay wire is used to increase the stiffness and strength of the knit (column 10, lines 55-57), thus a skilled artisan would understand the material of the inlay would be a stiffer material with a higher elastic modulus compared to the material of the rest of the knit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Stewart does not teach the amended claim 1. The Examiner disagrees. Stewart allows for the application of the fluid barrier material to be done via any known means, thus Stewart as evidenced by any one of Lindsay (Figure 2), Lowthian (Figures 7-9), Pedlow (Figure 1), Lazzara (Figure 2), or Choi (Figures 1-3) make obvious the surface application of such material
The Applicant argues the capabilities of Stewart are not as claimed, since Stewart is also one of the name inventors of the instant application they are invited to file an affidavit or declaration stating what they already disclosed does not also teach what is being claimed.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights