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
The Applicant states they have no record of the restriction requirement and election of claims 1-16 without traverse.
The Applicant had an interview with Examiner Vishal Patel on 3/19/2025. The instant Examiner misinterpreted the form, and assumed that even thought it was not mailed, that it was part of the visible file wrapper. A copy of the restriction and form is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
812
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
775
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
843
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant appears to have changed their mind, and is arguing the election with traverse, and states that there is no search burden. Since a different field of search (i.e. classification), different search strategies, and different search queries are needed when examiner a process versus a product.
So as to have a clear prosecution record, a second non-final office action is being provided to ensure the restriction is properly on the record.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al (U.S. Patent 11053615; already of record, herein Stewart). Regarding claims 1, 2, and 16:
Stewart teaches impregnating a shaped knit fabric with a settable impregnate which is 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.
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).
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 the end result of Stewart is not a fire or fluid barrier.
The Examiner disagrees. 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.
Conclusion
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