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
1. Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. Because applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected device, fuel tank and aircraft, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 4-8 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.
4. The terms “preferably” in claims 4-8 and the term “for example” in claim 8 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably and/or for example” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOLF, WO 2004/101872 in view of KUBOTA WO 2007/109100.
Regarding claims 1-3, the published WO reference issued to NOLF teaches a basalt comprising flexible fabric composite comprising two outer layers of basalt comprising fabric and inner middle layer of a silicone elastomer coated metallic fabric (page 9, lines 5, page 21 and figure 4). NOLF teaches that the basalt comprising fabrics are coated with a coating primer (P) and with a silicone elastomer coating (2A, 2B) on both opposite faces (page 21 and figure 4). Said inner layer is metallic knitted fabric (50) wherein said metallic knitted fabric is coated primer coating (P) before being embedded in a silicone elastomer layer (54) (pages 21-22 and figure 4). Because all the layers would be fire resistant of flame proof, the Examiner considers the metallic inner fabric (50) sufficient to meet the limitation of the fireproof and/or reinforcing frame. The Examiner also considers the basalt comprising fabrics sufficient to meet the limitation of the reinforcing layers and/or the fireproof frame. Regarding the claimed basalt reinforcing fabric layers, NOLF further teaches that the other fibers such glass, silicate or carbon can be used. In other words, the reinforcing basalt fiber comprising fabric can be completely free from basalt fibers (page 11, line 20). Said fabrics can be woven, knitted or braided (pages 5 and 13). NOLF teaches that the fabric composite can be used in variety of applications such as covering laminates, canisters, heat protection envelopes, fire resistance panels, liners, tubes and in the fields of construction and transport (car, train and plane) (page 14, line 3-page 15, 10). The Examiner considers a canister or a tube sufficient to meet the limitation of a “tank”. Applicants intended use language recited in the preamble of the claims is simply a statement of intended use, not a separate claim limitation. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering- Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[A] preamble simply stating the intended use or purpose of the invention will usually not limit the scope of the claim, unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuing claim terms and limits the claim accordingly."). Satisfaction of the recited structural features in the body of the claims necessarily results in a product capable of "a fuel tank”. Thus, the recited intended use is not a separate limitation that must be disclosed in the references in order to uphold the Examiner's obviousness determination. Outdry Techs. Corp. V. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
NOLF does not teach the claimed fluorosilicone rubber.
The published WO reference issued to KUBOTA a teaches a composite laminate comprising a fabric embedded in a matrix resin comprising an absorbing elastomeric filler (title, abstract). Said absorbing elastomeric filler can be the claimed fluorosilicone rubber (00029). KUBOTA teaches that the composite can be used in applications such as panels, containers, tanks, building equipment and barriers (paragraph 00012). The Examiner considers both cited references analogous. KUBOTA teaches that the impact absorbing fluorosilicone rubber filler is used to absorb impact force and provide shatter resistance (paragraphs 00029-00030). The Examiner is of the position that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the composite of NOLF with the fluorosilcone rubber impact absorbing filler of KUBOTA for the purpose of absorbing impact force and provide shatter resistance to the article.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, NOLF teaches that the basalt comprising fabrics weigh between 200-400 g/m^2 (page 18, line 25). The thickness of the fabrics are about 190 microns before coating (page 18, line 30). NOLF teaches that the diameter of the filaments range between 7 and 21 microns (page 18, line 30). Regarding the thickness of the metallic fabric, NOLF teaches a thickness ranging from 100-500 microns with wire filaments having diameters ranging from 5-25 microns (page 23, line 10).
Regarding claim 5, NOLF does not specifically teach the claimed fiber material but does teach using other fibers such as glass or carbon (see above). However, the fabric used in the KUBOTA composite is made from high strength fibers such as carbon, aramid or glass (paragraph 00031). The Examiner is of the position that it would be within a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the basalt comprising layers with other fibers such as aramid comprising fibers (e.g., Kevlar which is a para-aramid). The modification involves the mere substitution of one material with another material known for its suitability as fibrous reinforcing element/flame resistant and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, NOLF teaches basalt comprising fibers. NOLF specifically teaches that the basalt fibers comprise at least 46 wt. % of SiO2 (page 9, line 25). Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages of SiO2 content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 8, NOLF teaches adding glass or metallic fibers to the silicone elastomer (page 23, line 5). KUBOTA teaches that the specific fluorosilicone impact absorbing rubber filler is an amount of 80 wt. % of the matrix resin (page 00029) Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages fillers and cross-linking agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). The Examiner is of the position that based on the materials the composite would exhibit the claimed flameproof property.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, based on the disclosures of NOLF and KUBOTA it is expected that the flexible composites would satisfy at least one of the conditions set forth in claims 9 and 10. Namely, the strength, puncture resistance, and/or flame resistance. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
