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 .
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 1-7, 21-25 and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalande et al. (US 2009/0098331).
As seen at least in the embodiment of figures 17A-19, Lalande teaches the composite as claimed including a fabric having a plurality of stacked fiber layers (122a, 122b); a filament (131) stitched though the fabric in a pattern; and a bulk material (polymer resin, as noted at least at paragraph [0102]) surrounding the fabric and the filament, wherein the fabric and the bulk material are configured to include an opening (as seen at least in figure 18B) through the composite, the opening having a perimeter, and the pattern has a shape which borders the perimeter and is offset away from the perimeter as seen in figure 19. However, Lalande does not explicitly indicate the offset as being by less than or equal to about one-half of an inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the offset (aka seam allowance) as less than or equal to about one-half of an inch for the purpose of optimizing the strength of the seam relative to the peripheral edge of the material layers so as to provide sufficient reinforcement while still maintaining flexibility in the edge region. Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5 (via claim 4), the claimed offset falls within the “less than” portion of the obvious range set forth in claim 1. Regarding claim 4, the opening has a circular shape as seen in figure 18B. Regarding claim 6, the embodiment of figures 17A-19 shows only a first filament pattern instead of a first filament stitched through the fabric in a first pattern and a second filament stitched through the fabric in a second pattern, the first pattern has a first shape which borders a first portion of the perimeter, and the second pattern has a second shape which borders a second portion of the perimeter. However Lalande’s embodiment of figures 2 and 3, shows first and second pattern filaments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lalande’s embodiment of embodiment of figures 17A-19 with an additional filament and pattern for the purpose of increasing the strength of the composite and prevent the fibrous layers from separating. Note that the first pattern and the second pattern follow at least about 80% (100%) of a length of the perimeter. Regarding claim 7, Lalande does not set forth the sewn stitch as being a chain stitch pattern having a series of interlocking loops of the filament on a bottom surface of the fabric and a corresponding series of stitches on a top surface of the fabric. The Examiner takes Official Notice that interlocking chain stitches are especially well known for stitching fibrous materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different sewn stitches including interlocking chain stitches for stitching the fibrous material of Lalande and for the purpose of optimizing the strength and flexibility of the stitch connection between layers. Regarding claim 21, wherein the opening forms a hole through the composite. Regarding claim 22, a two-part fastener (70, 71) that includes a stud which extends through the opening and a head that corresponds to the stud to secure the two-part fastener within the opening as seen in figure 14A. Regarding claim 23, the stud is a pin, a lug, or a bolt, and the head is a pin, a nut, or a ring. Regarding claim 24, the fabric has a surface and the pattern includes a plurality of adjacent points where the filament is stitched through the fabric and extends along the fabric surface between adjacent points of the plurality of adjacent points; and the pattern shape along the plurality of adjacent points forms a curve as seen in figure 19. Regarding claim 25, Note the embodiment of figure 3 which wherein the pattern extends between adjacent points of the plurality of adjacent points to form two or more connected path segments between the adjacent points. Regarding claim 27, apart from a first point of the plurality of adjacent points, adjacent points of the plurality of adjacent points correspond to two connected path segments of the plurality of connected path segments. Regarding claim 28, each path segment of the plurality of connected path segments is linear as seen in figure 20. Regarding claim 29, Lalande teaches the composite as claimed including comprising: a fabric having a plurality of stacked fiber layers (122a, 122b); a filament (131) stitched though the fabric in a pattern, the filament reinforcing a through- thickness of the composite; a bulk material (polymer resin, as noted at least at paragraph [0102]) surrounding the fabric and the filament, the fabric and the bulk material are having an opening (as seen at least in figure 18B) through the composite, the opening having a curved perimeter; and a fastener extending through the opening, the filament providing reinforcement where the fastener interacts with the composite; wherein the pattern has a curved shape which borders at least a portion of the perimeter and is offset away from the perimeter. However, Lalande does not explicitly indicate the offset as being by less than or equal to about one-half of an inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the offset (aka seam allowance) as less than or equal to about one-half of an inch for the purpose of optimizing the strength of the seam relative to the peripheral edge of the material layers so as to provide sufficient reinforcement while still maintaining flexibility in the edge region. Regarding claim30, the claimed offset falls within the “less than” portion of the obvious range set forth in claim 29. Regarding claim 31, the embodiment of figures 17A-19 shows only a first filament pattern instead of a first filament stitched through the fabric in a first pattern and a second filament stitched through the fabric in a second pattern, the first pattern has a first shape which borders a first portion of the perimeter, and the second pattern has a second shape which borders a second portion of the perimeter. However Lalande’s embodiment of figures 2 and 3, shows first and second pattern filaments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lalande’s embodiment of embodiment of figures 17A-19 with an additional filament and pattern for the purpose of increasing the strength of the composite and prevent the fibrous layers from separating. Note that the first pattern and the second pattern follow at least about 80% (100%) of a length of the perimeter. Regarding claim 32, Lalande does not set forth the sewn stitch as being a chain stitch pattern having a series of interlocking loops of the filament on a bottom surface of the fabric and a corresponding series of stitches on a top surface of the fabric. The Examiner takes Official Notice that interlocking chain stitches are especially well known for stitching fibrous materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different sewn stitches including interlocking chain stitches for stitching the fibrous material of Lalande and for the purpose of optimizing the strength and flexibility of the stitch connection between layers. Regarding claim 33, the fabric has a surface and the pattern includes a plurality of adjacent points where the filament is stitched through the fabric and extends along the fabric surface between adjacent points of the plurality of adjacent points to form two or more connected path segments between the adjacent points; and the pattern shape along the plurality of adjacent points forms a curve as seen in figure 20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 26 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the recitations found therein including a ratio of a number of path segments of the plurality of connected path segments to a number of adjacent points of the plurality of adjacent points is 2:1 for at least a portion of the stitch pattern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
ldw