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 .
Drawings
The previous objection is withdrawn, and the drawings filed 7/25/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (JP 11114954; herein Sato, already of record, with machine translation), in view of Bruyere et al (US 6494235; herein Bruyere, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Sato teaches creating an carbon fiber fabric prepreg and then cutting the prepreg to form multiple tapes (Figures 1-4, Abstract, and paragraphs 0015-0017). Sato is silent to the fabric being a bias pattern fabric.
In the same field of endeavor Bruyere teaches bias fabrics have improved strength and can conform closely to surfaces (column 1, lines 17-23) and that using fabrics with a bias design built in, rather than cutting on the bias, saves money (column 2, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bias fabric in the process of Sato, since it saves money and improves the performance of the prepreg.
Regarding claim 2:
Bruyere teaches weaving the bias fabric (Figure 1 and column 6, lines 3-17).
Regarding claim 5:
As previously discussed with regards to claim 1 a prepreg is provisioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
The prepreg of Sato is made by sandwiching carbon fiber 10 between resin sheets 11 and 12 at nip roller 24 (Figure 1 and paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 15:
Sato teaches spooling the tape (Figure 4, paper tubes 46 and bobbin 39)
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Sato and Bruyere teaches the processing of claim 21. Bruyere shows why it is obvious to use bias fabrics, and Sato show how to cut and process strips of prepregs, and as seen in Figure 4 of Sato the strips are cut as claimed. The combination of Sato and Bruyere would then also have the desired fabric and fiber structure of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22:
Sato teaches such material placement, and Sato teaches that the prepreg can be uncured or B-stage (i.e. partially cured) in paragraph 0022, which is then cut.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Machii (JP 2002105820; already of record, with machine translation, already of record). Regarding claim 3:
Sato and Bruyere are silent to the braiding, cutting, and laying of claim 3.
In the same field of endeavor Machii teaches braiding fiber around a form, cutting the woven material, and creating a roll of fabric (Abstract and Figures 3-5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to create the fabric as taught by Machii, since it enables the creation of large sizes compared to traditional means, at faster speeds, and lower costs (paragraphs 0005-0009).
Regarding claim 4:
Sato, Bruyere, and Machii do not explicitly state the length. However, Machii allows for continuous length (paragraphs 0055-0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the needed length, since scaling of a known process is obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Additionally, it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan using a continuous process would know when to stop the process for the needed amount of material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Matsui et al (JP 60060136; with English Abstract, already of record). Regarding claim 8:
As previously discussed Sato teaches a different method to impregnate the resin than that of claim 8. In the same field of endeavor Matsui teaches one can impregnate carbon fiber cloth with a resin bath, rollers, and a set of environmental controlled chambers (Figure 1, Abstract: Constitution, impregnation tank 2, rollers 3 and 7 and in the tank, and drying oven 4 and drier 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to impregnate the carbon fiber as needed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be able to determine the needed method of impregnation out of known choices, since the end result would be the same. Additionally, the method of Matsui allows for the formation of a sheet that has desirable hardness, is free of cracks, and is tack free (Abstract: Purpose)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2017/0008239; herein Zhang, already of record). Regarding claim 9:
As previously discussed Sato teaches a different method to impregnate the resin than that of claim 8. In the same field of endeavor Zhang teaches that one can use a doctor blade among many possible means to coat a resin mixture on a fabric (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to impregnate the carbon fiber as needed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be able to determine the needed method of impregnation out of known choices, since the end result would be the same. Additionally, Zhang teaches a doctor blade is equivalent to many possible means of adding the resin (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Yamada et al (JP H06114995; herein Yamada, with machine translation, already of record). Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Sato does not teach adding a releasable film to at least one side of the run of prepreg material.
In the same field of endeavor Yamada teaches adding a silicone release paper 2 to prepreg tape 3 and into a roll 4 (paragraph 0003 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the release paper of Yamada on the tape of Sato, since it prevents the tape from sticking to itself.
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
The combination of Sato and Yamada make obvious such cutting, since Sato (as previously discussed) teaches such cutting, and the as previously discussed Yamada makes the release film obvious. The order of when the release film is added and which form is cut is still obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art since the end result is the same.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Hou et al (US 2019/0061279; herein Hou, already of record) and Ramachandran et al (US 2017/0121877; herein Ramachandran, already of record).
Sato does not teach splicing two lengths together to be at least 80 feet long.
In the same field of making composite tapes Hou teaches one can splice together runs of material by melting the fibers together (paragraph 0082), but not stitching,
In the same field of endeavor Ramachandran teaches that splicing using stitching or adhesives (which is seen as the same as the melting together of Hou) are equivalents for the same purpose (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to splice runs together by stitching, since it allows for continuous operations, and stitching and adhesives are equivalent for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 II). Regarding the length:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the needed length, since scaling of a known process is obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Additionally, it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan using a continuous process would know when to stop the process for the needed amount of material.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Bruyere as applied above, and further in view of Kendrick et al (US 2014/0246142; herein Kendrick, already of record). Regarding claim 16:
Sato and Bruyere do not teach what happens after the prepreg is produced. In the same field of composites, Kendrick teaches unspooling tape onto a mold (Figures 9A-11, 13, and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the tape as taught by Kendrick since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would know when and where to use such tape, and in the instance of Kendrick, such use allows for the production of aerospace components.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Bruyere, and Kendrick as applied above, and further in view of Hou and Ramachandran. Regarding claim 17:
See remarks regarding claim 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Bruyere, and Kendrick as applied above, and further in view of Yamada. Regarding claim 18:
See remarks regarding claim 16, and additionally Yamada teaches removing the release paper 2 prior to the tape application (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the tape as claimed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would know to remove the release film prior to use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the EPO machine translation of Sato is unacceptable, and points to the Google Patents machine translation as being a better translation (without also supplying said translation). The Applicant only points to paragraph 0012 of the EPO machine translation where it says "crushing" while the Google Patents machine translation says "cutting". The Examiner disagrees. The EPO machine translation is perfectly acceptable for what is required herein. One can simply look at the drawings of Sato and see that Sato cuts not crushes. The Google Patents machine translation also contains similar errors as to what the Applicant was pointing to in the EPO machine translation. In paragraph 0015 the EPO machine translation uses the word "strip shape", while the Google Patent machine translation uses "belt shape". In most parlances a belt is a continuous loop of material, not just a strip. Also the end of paragraph 0017 of the Google Patents translation states simply: "Has become". This does not appear in paragraph 0017 of the EPO machine translation. The point being no machine translation is perfect, and based on the Examiners reading and usage of the EPO machine translation is perfectly acceptable for the job at hand, and will continued to be used during prosecution.
In response to applicant's argument regarding Sato, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Applicant is arguing against the combination without looking at the combination as a whole.
In this instance Sato teaches the prepreg processing steps minus the prepreg being a bias fabric. Bruyere teaches why one would want to use a bias fabric. Thus the combination would cut the bias fabric of Bruyere via the method of Sato. A skilled artisan would understand they would be applying one technique to another, and thus there is no destroying of the Sato reference. If one would want to cut strips of bias fabric prepregs, then obvious one would look at how to cut prepreg strips. The motivation comes from the use of bias fabric, thus again there is motivation for the combination of Sato and Bruyere.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
