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 without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “set of chambers” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 and 14 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.
Claim 8 is seen as vague and indefinite since, as written, it is unclear what structures are under temperature and humidity control. For examination purposes it will be treated as the chambers are under temperature and humidity control.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the releasable film" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, however the releasable film is not a limitation in claim 1. Claim 14 will be treated as if it depended on claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 does not provide any further limitation as to how the fabric is impregnated. Claim 5 is essentially stating that the fabric was purchased as a prepreg. Since there is no additional steps for the impregnation (such as what claim 6 claims), claim 5 is seen as not further limiting claim 1. With regards to the “predefined resin content”, all prepregs naturally have a “predefined resin content”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and 15 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). 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)
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). 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). 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). 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). 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) and Ramachandran et al (US 2017/0121877; herein Ramachandran).
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). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references on the PTO-892 are related to the production of bias fabric and prepreg composite materials.
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
Prosecution Insights