DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-6 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
Regarding claim 1, a recitation of physical properties in the composite (i.e. electromagnetic wave-absorbing and low speed impact protection), without setting forth substantial structural or chemical characteristics of the composite is indefinite in scope and structure. According to Ex parte Slob, 157 USPQ 172:
“Claims merely setting forth physical characteristics desired in article, and not setting forth specific compositions which would meet such characteristics, are invalid as vague, indefinite, and functional since they cover any conceivable combination of ingredients presently existing or which might be discovered in the future and which would impart desired characteristics…”
The inquiry is to determine whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and the definiteness of the claim language employed must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing an ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 1-2 and 6 only describe the properties of the composite without substantively describing the structure or chemical characteristics of the composite (beyond stitching and comprising glass fibers, epoxy, or GFRP). Applicant only claims the characteristic properties of the overall which may be broadly applied instead of claiming the specific elements or structures within the composite comprising such properties. Any layer (composite or not) will provide at least some (above 0) impact protection to an underlying layer and nearly all layers (composite or not) will provide at least some (above 0) electromagnetic wave-absorption. Therefore, any general stitched glass-fiber composite or stitched epoxy fiber composite known at the time of conception or later invented could comprise the claimed composite.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims circumscribe an area of protection which exceed the reasonable degree of precision and particularity as set forth in Moore. Accordingly, at least claims 1-2 and 6 are indefinite for failing to identify a structure which can meet the claim limitations and for reciting only the desired properties of the composite.
Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed if the composite comprises both the electromagnetic wave-absorbing property and low-speed impact protection system, or the low-speed impact protection system is additional to the composite, and, if so, how that factors into the stitching “applied thereto” and how that applies to the materials/layers forming thereof. Is the stitching required only in the impact protection system portion and/or in the electromagnetic wave-absorbing property portion? How would one differentiate one from the other as claimed? If a composite is claimed but no resin is required for any of claims 1-6, could a layered garment anticipate the claimed limitations?
Furthermore, the term “low-speed” in claims 1-2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-speed” 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. Furthermore, as applied to claim 2, it is unclear as to what item/object/article is impacting the composite at any given low-speed value or range (i.e. impact energy) and/or to what requisite degree of electromagnetic wave absorption performance is required to be maintained (i.e. 0.1%? 10% 50%? 95%) to meet the claimed limitation.
Therefore, claims 1-2 will be interpreted broadly, with any stitched stack/composite/laminate comprising glass fiber, epoxy, or GRFP having explicitly or implicitly the properties of electromagnetic wave-absorbing property and impact protection considered meeting the limitations for claim 1, wherein any item at impacting any speed and not entirely destroying the composite by implication or explicitly is understood to meet the claim limitations for claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are dependent on one or more indefinite claims and do not entirely fix the issues as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aston et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0200460 A1) (hereinafter “Aston”), wherein claims 4 & 6 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aston in view of Angappan et al. (Tailorable electromagnetic interference shielding using nickel coated glass fabric-epoxy composite with excellent mechanical property) (hereinafter “Angappan”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Aston teaches a plurality of woven or nonwoven fibrous webs embedded in a binder, preferably epoxy [0039, 0069, 0073, 0075], wherein at least one web is a core web comprising either a metallized mesh attached to a fibrous web or a metallized or metallic fiber fibrous web [0020, 0058] to provide electromagnetic interference particularly for aircraft and other vehicles and wind turbines for the protection of electronics [0005-0009, 0014-0019, 0078, 0082], wherein the fibrous material is preferably glass fibers and polyester [0064, 0072-0073], wherein the other fibrous web layers are attached to the core layer on one or both sides via stitching [0018, 0070], wherein the stitching and stitched layers located above the core would inherently provide at least some impact protection for the core and any layers located therebelow at any velocity and the electromagnetic interference performance holding up to low-speed impacts by dust and debris, wherein the metallization can be of any type such as copper, aluminum, and/or stainless steel [0023].
Further regarding claim 6, although the prior art does not disclose an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the range of 9.2 to 12.4 GHz, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Aston teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, regarding claims 4 and 6, Angappan teaches a tailorable electromagnetic interference shielding for avionics equipment, wherein desired EMI shielding in a targeted frequency range of 8-18 GHz, which includes the X-band (8.2-12.4 GHz), wherein 30 dB corresponding to 99.9% attenuation is desirable, is achieved by providing a conductive composite in the form of an electroless nickel-plated glass fabric embedded in epoxy resin, wherein nickel is a preferred conventional metal over copper and stainless steel and providing a conductive composite easier to process and mechanically stronger than filler-based composites especially for structural applications, wherein the thickness of the plating/coating can be tuned to be electromagnetically attenuating via primarily absorption (at about 32 nm) or reflection (> 32 nm, highest at about 400 nm) for a total attenuation in the range of about 7 to about 55 dB, wherein when included in a glass fiber composite laminate provides or prima facie obviously provides the desired attenuation in the X-band, wherein the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the composite core fibrous web as a nickel-plated glass fiber composite having an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the X-band within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a desirable attenuation level for avionic systems using specific materials from the disclosure of Aston.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aston, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 4,622,254) (hereinafter “Nishimura”) and optionally Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on compression after impact strength and response of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2012”), as evidenced by Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on low-velocity impact damage of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2010”).
Regarding claim 5, the specifics of the stitching are not taught by Aston.
Nishimura teaches that a composite of stacked reinforcing fiber fabrics embedded epoxy being attached via stitching by stitch yarns of either glass or polyaramide (aramid) (col. 6, lines 20-28), wherein the both the stitch length (disposal in the warp direction) and interval between adjacent stitch yarns (spacing of them in the fill direction) at intervals from 2 to 30 mm, wherein below 2 mm causes damage to the reinforcing fiber fabrics and above 30 mm provides insufficient stitch density to provide the stitched effect (col. 7, lines 14-22), wherein the stitching improved the composite structural integrity measured by compressive strength drop after impact by preventing propagation of impact-produced cracking upon impacts at an impact energy of about 275 (27 J) (col. 12, lines 1-14), wherein the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Furthermore, Tan 2012 teaches that for laminated composites embedded in epoxy (XNR/H6813) compression after impact performance remains an important design criterion for composites in the aerospace industry undergoing low-velocity impacts, wherein stitching provides one of the highest ratio of damage tolerance performance to economical cost in relation to other methods of improving impact damage, wherein Tan 2012 builds on the work of Tan 2010 and uses the same composite builds and testing matrix (pg. 585, left col., last paragraph & right col., two last paragraphs) in proving that a high stitch density improves compression after impact performance due in part to the higher stitch density arresting and confining crack propagation (pgs. 594-595) in relation to more moderate stitched and especially unstitched composites, as evidenced/corroborated by Tan 2010 that composites comprising a higher stitch density (i.e. 3 mm x 3 mm) are more effective in suppressing crack growth than moderately stitched (i.e. 6 mm x 6 mm) composites (pgs. 1860-186, Conclusion), wherein an impact energy of 25-27.3 J equates to a low-speed of about 2.82-2.95 m/s (10 km/h) according to a testing matrix that measuring results from impact velocities in the range of about 1.5 to 4.5 m/s (about 5.4~16 km/h) [pg. 1859, Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an aramid fiber in the stitching pattern prima facie within or near the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide stitching in a manner to provide the inherent/desired impact/delamination resistance at a low velocity, wherein designing specifically for impact damage would necessitate using the highest reasonable stitch density allowed (i.e. within the lower end of the range set forth in Nishimura).
Claims 1-3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meng (CN 2799229 Y) (hereinafter “Meng”), wherein claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meng, and wherein claims 4 & 6 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meng in view of Kwak et al. (Nickel-coated glass/epoxy honeycomb sandwich composite for broadband RCS reduction) (hereinafter “Nam”), or vice-versa.
Regarding claims 1-4, Meng teaches a honeycomb sandwich panel composite structure comprising an inner electromagnetic wave absorbing fiber composite layer, such as a carbon fiber composite, providing a stealth design [0011, 0019] and an outer stitched fiber composite layer that allows electromagnetic waves to pass-through, such as a stitched fiberglass composite, wherein the stitching improves the impact performance of the composite structure [0010-0011, 0019] with electromagnetic interference performance holding up to low-speed impacts by dust and debris, wherein a traditional resin for forming both carbon fiber and glass fiber reinforced composites is well-known to be epoxy.
Further regarding claim 6, although the prior art does not disclose an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the range of 9.2 to 12.4 GHz, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Meng teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, regarding claims 4 and 6, Nam teaches a honeycomb sandwich structure designed for stealth [0022-0023] such that a radar reduction performance is a loss of 10 dB over a broadband (including the X-band) of 2 to 18 GHz [0025-0026, 0077], wherein the honeycomb includes at least one outer skin layer comprising epoxy resin and glass fibers [0016, 0053], a honeycomb/core layer comprising epoxy resin and nickel-coated glass fiber, via an electroless plating technique [0008, 0049], forming a first electromagnetic wave absorbing layer [0052] and an inner/intermediate/lower layer comprising epoxy resin and nickel-coated glass fiber forming a second electromagnetic wave absorbing layer [0048, 0053, 0063], wherein the number of honeycomb core layers is optimizable [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the electromagnetic absorbing layers of the honeycomb panel composite structure as an electroless nickel-plated glass fiber composite having an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the X-band within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a component having a desirable attenuation level for stealth purposes.
OR Vice-versa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to stitch the outermost glass fiber and epoxy resin skin layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an aerospace component with an increased impact resistance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 4,622,254) (hereinafter “Nishimura”) and optionally Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on compression after impact strength and response of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2012”), as evidenced by Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on low-velocity impact damage of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2010”).
Regarding claim 5, the specifics of the stitching are not taught by Meng.
Nishimura teaches that a composite of stacked reinforcing fiber fabrics embedded epoxy being attached via stitching by stitch yarns of either glass or polyaramide (aramid) (col. 6, lines 20-28), wherein the both the stitch length (disposal in the warp direction) and interval between adjacent stitch yarns (spacing of them in the fill direction) at intervals from 2 to 30 mm, wherein below 2 mm causes damage to the reinforcing fiber fabrics and above 30 mm provides insufficient stitch density to provide the stitched effect (col. 7, lines 14-22), wherein the stitching improved the composite structural integrity measured by compressive strength drop after impact by preventing propagation of impact-produced cracking upon impacts at an impact energy of about 275 (27 J) (col. 12, lines 1-14).
Furthermore, Tan 2012 teaches that for laminated composites embedded in epoxy (XNR/H6813) compression after impact performance remains an important design criterion for composites in the aerospace industry undergoing low-velocity impacts, wherein stitching provides one of the highest ratio of damage tolerance performance to economical cost in relation to other methods of improving impact damage, wherein Tan 2012 builds on the work of Tan 2010 and uses the same composite builds and testing matrix (pg. 585, left col., last paragraph & right col., two last paragraphs) in proving that a high stitch density improves compression after impact performance due in part to the higher stitch density arresting and confining crack propagation (pgs. 594-595) in relation to more moderate stitched and especially unstitched composites, as evidenced/corroborated by Tan 2010 that composites comprising a higher stitch density (i.e. 3 mm x 3 mm) are more effective in suppressing crack growth than moderately stitched (i.e. 6 mm x 6 mm) composites (pgs. 1860-186, Conclusion), wherein an impact energy of 25-27.3 J equates to a low-speed of about 2.82-2.95 m/s (10 km/h) according to a testing matrix that measuring results from impact velocities in the range of about 1.5 to 4.5 m/s (about 5.4~16 km/h) [pg. 1859, Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an aramid fiber in the stitching pattern prima facie within or near the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide stitching in a manner to provide the inherent/desired impact/delamination resistance at a low velocity, wherein designing specifically for impact damage would necessitate using the highest reasonable stitch density allowed (i.e. within the lower end of the range set forth in Nishimura).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hongping et al. CN 100363546 C) (hereinafter “Hongping”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hongping in view of by Meng (CN 2799229 Y) (hereinafter “Meng”), wherein claims 4 & 6 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hongping OR Hongping/Meng in view of Kwak et al. (Nickel-coated glass/epoxy honeycomb sandwich composite for broadband RCS reduction) (hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claims 1-6, Hongping teaches a fiber composite honeycomb panel structure comprising stitching/sewing stacked layers of dry fibers or prepregs [0007-0008] having improved impact resistance, with electromagnetic interference performance holding up to low-speed impacts by dust and debris, the stitching comprising a stitch length of 0.2 to 10 mm (disposal in the warp direction) and an interval between adjacent stitch rows of 0.2 to 10 mm (spacing of them in the fill direction), wherein in an example composite honeycomb panel structure comprises an outer face layer(s) of glass fiber and epoxy resin and a core layer of carbon fiber and epoxy resin (inherently providing at least some electromagnetic wave-absorption) is stitched by a stitch yarn comprising aramid/Kevlar in a pattern comprising a stitch length of 6 mm and a stitch spacing of 3 mm and 6 mm [0042], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
In the event that the electromagnetic wave absorption is not considered taught by Hongping: Meng teaches a honeycomb sandwich panel composite structure comprising an inner electromagnetic wave absorbing fiber composite, such as a carbon fiber composite, providing a design for stealth [0011, 0019] and an outer fiber composite that allows electromagnetic waves to pass-through, such as a fiberglass composite [0010-0011, 0019]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an outer electromagnetic wave transmitting component layer(s) and an inner electromagnetic wave absorbing component (core and/or skin) layer(s). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an aircraft component with a stealth design.
Alternatively, regarding claims 4 and 6, Nam teaches a honeycomb sandwich structure designed for stealth [0022-0023] such that a radar reduction performance is a loss of 10 dB over a broadband (including the X-band) of 2 to 18 GHz [0025-0026, 0077], wherein the honeycomb includes at least one outer skin layer comprising epoxy resin and glass fibers [0016, 0053], a honeycomb/core layer comprising epoxy resin and nickel-coated glass fiber, via an electroless plating technique [0008, 0049], forming a first electromagnetic wave absorbing layer [0052] and an inner/intermediate/lower layer comprising epoxy resin and nickel-coated glass fiber forming a second electromagnetic wave absorbing layer [0048, 0053, 0063], wherein the number of honeycomb core layers is optimizable [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the electromagnetic absorbing layers in the honeycomb panel composite structure as an electroless nickel-plated glass fiber composite having an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the X-band within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a component having a desirable attenuation level for stealth purposes.
Claims 1-4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 11202620 A) (hereinafter “Li”), wherein claims 4 & 6 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li in view of Choi et al. (Radar-absorbing nickel-coated fabric composite for wing-shaped structure in the X-band) (hereinafter “Choi”) and Angappan et al. (Tailorable electromagnetic interference shielding using nickel coated glass fabric-epoxy composite with excellent mechanical property) (hereinafter “Angappan”), or, alternatively, Choi in view of Li and Angappan.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6, Li teaches a structural electromagnetic wave absorbing composite having improved interlaminar strength and designed for meeting stealth performance requirements of no less than -10 dB even at large angles [0004-0006] comprising a stack of one or more outer electromagnetic wave transmitting fiber fabric composite layers comprising quartz, Kevlar, or glass fibers [0005, 0018, 0047, 0055, 0064], one or more electromagnetic wave absorbing fiber fabric composite layers comprising quartz, Kevlar, or glass fibers including sprayed/printed fillers such as graphene, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, silicon carbide, and carbonyl iron powder [0016-0017, 0029, 0033-0034, 0039, 0055], and one or more electromagnetic wave reflecting layers comprising carbon fibers [0019, 0036, 0039, 0055], wherein the stack is stitched, with a yarn such as aramid/Kevlar with a pattern of 15 mm x 15 mm – 60 mm x 60 mm [0013, 0030] and impregnated with a thermosetting resin, such as epoxy as disclosed and./or as is well-known in the art [0040, 0048, 0056], wherein the stitching and stitched transmitting layers located above the absorbing/reflecting layers would inherently provide at least some impact protection for the absorbing/reflecting layers therebelow at any velocity and the electromagnetic interference performance holding up to low-speed impacts by dust and debris.
Alternatively, regarding claims 4 and 6, Choi teaches a radar absorbing structure for stealth purposes, improving over including conductive particles such as graphene and carbon nanotubes, wherein at least one ply/layer of nickel-coated glass fabric is included within a composite lay-up of glass fiber fabric reinforced plies/layers providing a radar cross-section reduction of at least 10 dB in the X-band range (8.2 GHz to 12.4 GHz) [pgs. 4 & 6].
Furthermore, Angappan teaches a tailorable electromagnetic interference shielding for avionics equipment, wherein desired EMI shielding in a targeted frequency range of 8-18 GHz, which includes the X-band (8.2-12.4 GHz), wherein 30 dB corresponding to 99.9% attenuation is desirable, is achieved by providing a conductive composite in the form of an electroless nickel-plated glass fabric embedded in epoxy resin, wherein nickel is a preferred conventional metal over copper and stainless steel and providing a conductive composite easier to process and mechanically stronger than filler-based composites especially for structural applications, wherein the thickness of the plating/coating can be tuned to be electromagnetically attenuating via primarily absorption (at about 32 nm) or reflection (> 32 nm, highest at about 400 nm) for a total attenuation in the range of about 7 to about 55 dB, wherein when included in a glass fiber composite laminate provides or prima facie obviously provides the desired attenuation in the X-band, wherein the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the composite absorbing and/or reflecting fibrous composite layers as a nickel-plated glass fiber composite layers having an absorbency of electromagnetic waves in the X-band within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a desirable attenuation level for avionic systems.
OR Vice-versa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a composite comprising one or more outer wave transmitting glass fiber composite layers with one or more wave absorbing and/or reflecting nickel-plated glass fiber composite layers as a stitched composite. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an electromagnetically attenuating structural composite with increased mechanical strength [Li; 0002, 0006, 0021] optimizing the absorbency/reflecting properties of the by the coating thickness of the electroless plated nickel [Angappan].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li OR Choi in view of Li/Angappan, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 4,622,254) (hereinafter “Nishimura”) and optionally Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on compression after impact strength and response of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2012”), as evidenced by Tan et al. (Effect of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on low-velocity impact damage of stitched composites) (hereinafter “Tan 2010”).
Regarding claim 5, the stitching spacing range of 15 mm x 15 mm to 60 mm x 60 mm is outside the claimed range.
Nishimura teaches that a composite of stacked reinforcing fiber fabrics embedded epoxy being attached via stitching by stitch yarns of either glass or polyaramide (aramid) (col. 6, lines 20-28), wherein the both the stitch length (disposal in the warp direction) and interval between adjacent stitch yarns (spacing of them in the fill direction) at intervals from 2 to 30 mm, wherein below 2 mm causes damage to the reinforcing fiber fabrics and above 30 mm provides insufficient stitch density to provide the stitched effect (col. 7, lines 14-22), wherein the stitching improved the composite structural integrity measured by compressive strength drop after impact by preventing propagation of impact-produced cracking upon impacts at an impact energy of about 275 (27 J) (col. 12, lines 1-14).
Furthermore, Tan 2012 teaches that for laminated composites embedded in epoxy (XNR/H6813) compression after impact performance remains an important design criterion for composites in the aerospace industry undergoing low-velocity impacts, wherein stitching provides one of the highest ratio of damage tolerance performance to economical cost in relation to other methods of improving impact damage, wherein Tan 2012 builds on the work of Tan 2010 and uses the same composite builds and testing matrix (pg. 585, left col., last paragraph & right col., two last paragraphs) in proving that a high stitch density improves compression after impact performance due in part to the higher stitch density arresting and confining crack propagation (pgs. 594-595) in relation to more moderate stitched and especially unstitched composites, as evidenced/corroborated by Tan 2010 that composites comprising a higher stitch density (i.e. 3 mm x 3 mm) are more effective in suppressing crack growth than moderately stitched (i.e. 6 mm x 6 mm) composites (pgs. 1860-186, Conclusion), wherein an impact energy of 25-27.3 J equates to a low-speed of about 2.82-2.95 m/s (10 km/h) according to a testing matrix that measuring results from impact velocities in the range of about 1.5 to 4.5 m/s (about 5.4~16 km/h) [pg. 1859, Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an aramid fiber in the stitching pattern prima facie within or near the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide stitching in a manner to provide the inherent/desired impact/delamination resistance at a low velocity, wherein designing specifically for impact damage would necessitate using the highest reasonable stitch density allowed (i.e. within the lower end of the range set forth in Nishimura).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hosur et al. (Experimental investigations on the response of stitched/unstitched woven S2-glass/SC15 epoxy composites under single and repeated low velocity impact loading) teach additional stitch patterns for glass woven epoxy composite laminates under single and repeated low velocity impact loading.
Wang et al. (Effects of stitch on mechanical and microwave absorption properties of radar absorbing structure) teach a stitched radar absorbing structure included within a glass fiber reinforced epoxy laminate structure, wherein the stitching improved low-velocity impact resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 29th, 2026
Prosecution Insights