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 Group I, corresponding to Claims 1-11 and 15-19, in the reply filed on July 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant’s election with traverse of Species (i), corresponding to Claims 1, 2, and 5-11, in the reply filed on July 9, 2026, is also acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Examiner did not specifically identify which features disclosed in the cited references correspond to the claimed technical feature in each Group and that the Examiner did not demonstrate that the claimed combination of features is non-inventive in those references. This is not found persuasive because the Office adopted the findings of the International Search Report and cited portions of the references cited by the International Search Report, which had established that the combination of features was already found to be non-inventive. Applicant has not addressed the findings of International Search Report. Moreover, grounds of rejection related to anticipation and/or obviousness for each claim limitation are provided below, which also show that the claimed combination of features are non-inventive. As to the election of species requirement, a composite material containing a woven fabric requiring multifilament yarns is structurally distinct and non-overlapping in scope compared to a composite material containing a woven fabric requiring monofilament yarns. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2014/0273686 to Eguchi et al. (“Eguchi”), as evidenced by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0080702 to Murakami et al. (“Murakami”).
With regard to Claim 1, Eguchi discloses a composite that comprises a composite layer containing a glass cloth formed of an assembly of glass fibers and a resin material impregnated in the glass cloth. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Eguchi discloses that the assembly of glass fibers comprises a woven fabric formed using multifilament weaving yarns. Figure 1 and paragraphs [0040] and [0045]. Eguchi discloses that the filaments forming the weaving yarns comprise E glass, S glass, T glass, or NE glass, paragraph [0041] and Examples, which are known to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have a tensile elastic modulus greater than 20 GPa. See Murakami, paragraph [0206] (disclosing E glass to have a tensile elastic modulus of about 72 to 75 GPa and S glass to have a tensile elastic modulus of about 85 GPa). Eguchi discloses that a thermoplastic elastomer, such as a urethane-based resin, can be used to impregnate the assembly of glass fibers. Paragraph [0066]. Eguchi shows that the resin penetrates through openings of the woven fabric from one surface and is exposed at another surface at a rate of 10% or higher. Figure 2. With regard to Claim 9, an area of less than 0.0010 mm2 would not be visible to the human eye. However, Eguchi shows that the openings are visible. Figure 1. Moreover, the resin would not be able to penetrate through openings of the woven fabric if they were to be smaller than the claimed 0.0010 mm2. With regard to Claim 10, Eguchi discloses the presence of a barrier layer bonded to the glass cloth via the matrix resin. Figure 2 and paragraph [0038]. With regard to Claim 11, the composite material of Eguchi is capable of reinforcing a display element. Paragraph [0007].
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011-121284 to Sakagami et al. (an English translation obtained from the PE2Edatabase is referenced herein) (“Sakagami”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0017965 to Kawamata et al. (“Kawamata”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0071340 to Ridge et al. (“Ridge”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 6, Sakagami discloses a composite sheet comprising a woven fabric having a plurality of openings combined with a thermoplastic resin, such as polyurethane resin. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Sakagami discloses that the thermoplastic polyurethane resin is elastomeric. See, e.g., page 13, Example 1 (“Milactolan XN-2004 (hardness (Shore A) 95)”). Sakagami discloses that the woven sheet can be provided with mesh openings, such that thermoplastic elastomer resin can penetrate the openings from one side, integrate into the woven sheet, and be present on the opposite side. Page 3 (“The resin-containing material can be disposed on both sides of the woven sheet through the opening to form a thermoplastic resin layer.”). Sakagami discloses an exposed are rate of greater than 10%, noting that the woven sheets can be “completely integrated” by the thermoplastic resin. Page 8. Sakagami does not disclose using weaving yarns being multifilaments and each having a tensile elastic modulus of 20 GPa or higher. Kawamata is related to the formation of liquid crystal polyester fibers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Kawamata teaches that the liquid crystal polyester fibers provide high strength and elastic modulus, and are suitable for use as fiber reinforcement. Paragraph [0068]. Kawamata teaches that the fibers can be provided as a multifilament fiber, which allows selection of a number of filaments with smaller fiber fineness to enhance flexibility. Paragraph [0092]. Kawamata is silent with regard to the quantitative tensile elastic modulus of the liquid crystal polyester fiber. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary, and therefore obvious, to establish a suitable value for such material. Ridge is also related to high strength synthetic fiber materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Ridge teaches that liquid crystal polyester fiber can provide a tensile elastic modulus of about 65 GPa. Paragraph [0010]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide multifilament weaving yarns, such as liquid crystal polyester fiber, wherein the filaments each have a tensile elastic modulus of 20 GPa or higher, in the woven fabric disclosed by Sakagami in order to provide a high strength fiber material with flexibility and a suitable resistance to stretching, because Kawamata establishes that such fibers were later developed for use in such applications, and because Ridge establishes that such materials possess a tensile elastic modulus greater than 20 GPa. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claim 2, an opening per square inch of 3 square mm represents an opening area of about 0.5%. Sakagami discloses the opening area of the woven fabric is 50% or greater. Page 4. With regard to Claim 7, Kawamata discloses that the liquid crystal polyester fibers can be used in a composite fiber with other components to provide additional functionality. Paragraph [0054]. With regard to Claim 8, Sakagami shows a length/width ratio of the openings to be from 0.5 to 2. Page 4 and Figure 8 (compare P1 to P2). With regard to Claim 9, an area of less than 0.0010 mm2 would not be visible to the human eye. However, Sakagami shows that the openings are visible. Figures 7 and 8. Moreover, the resin would not be able to penetrate through openings of the woven fabric if they were to be smaller than the claimed 0.0010 mm2. Sakagami establishes that the fabric has an open area ratio that is 50% or higher, such as 80%. Page 4. With regard to Claim 10, Sakagami discloses the composite material is combined with additional layers if RFID tags or passports. Pages 8-9. Sakagami also teaches that the resin material can be used for bonding while in a molten state. Page 7. With regard to Claim 11, the composite material of Sakagami is capable of reinforcing other layers because it, itself, contains a reinforcing material. Page 7.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagami in view of Kawamata and Ridge as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of International Application Publication WO 2020/085246 to Suzuki et al. (the English equivalent, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0348327, is referenced herein) (“Suzuki”).
With regard to Claim 5, Sakagami does not disclose the amount of thermoplastic elastomer resin is 20% or more, by weight. Suzuki is also related to a composite sheet comprising a woven fabric impregnated with a thermoplastic resin. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Suzuki discloses that, even when the open area ratio of a fabric is less than 50%, paragraph [0059], the ratio of the mass of thermoplastic resin to the mass of the woven fabric can be as high as 25%. Paragraph [0067]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the resin in the composite taught by the combination of Sakagami with Kawamata and Ridge in an amount that is greater than 20%, by weight, or more in order to provide a sufficient amount of resin to fill the open area of the woven fabric, as shown to be known by Suzuki, which provides resin amounts within that range in instances where the open area of the woven fabric is much less, compared to Sakagami. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0123717 to Goto et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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 D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights