DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-5 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to expand the acronym "RTM" to read --resin transfer molding-- to assist in the understanding the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 further limits the fiber structure of claim 1 stating “wherein the interlayer binding yarns located in the end regions are melted by impregnating the fiber structure with a thermosetting resin using an RTM method. However, claim 1 requires the binding yarns located in the end regions to be present (see e.g., lines 21-27). Therefore, claim 5 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends (i.e., binding yarns located in the end regions).
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combier (US 4748996) in view of Nishimura (US 4622254).
With respect to claim 1, Combier teaches a multilayered woven textile comprising first, second, and third layers all formed out of straight yarns (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 5-15). The first and third layers (first yarn layers) are filling yarns arranged parallel to each other (first yarns each having a main axis extending in a first direction and are arranged in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction) and with the respective filling yarns arranged in superposed relation with a layer of straight warp yarns (second layer) extending perpendicular thereto (second layers having a yarn main axis extending in a second direction, the second yarns being arranged in the first direction) and positioned between the layers of filling yarns (one of the first yarns layers is located at each op opposite ends of the fiber structure in the stacking direction) (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 5-15). Binder yarns are provided for interconnecting the three layers of yarns (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 16-27).
As can be seen in Figs. 1-3, the binder yarns 50 extend in a second direction (i.e., parallel to the warp direction (second direction) and perpendicular to the filling direction (first direction)) and is engaged with the yarns of the first and third filling layers (first yarns layers) located at opposite ends of the fiber structure in the stacking direction. As seen in the annotated Fig. 1 below, the fiber structure comprises a central region and two adjacent end regions which include multiple warp layer ends (end second yarns), and both the central region and the end regions comprise binder yarns 50. As also seen in Figs. 1 and 2, the pairs of binding yarns 50 pass through mutually exclusive paths.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
124
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Combier is silent as to a pitch in the first direction between the interlayer binding yarns in the end regions being smaller than a pitch in the first direction between interlayer binding yarns in the central region.
Nishimura teaches a fiber material for reinforcing plastics prepared by laminating a plurality of fiber substrates and having quasiisotropy within its surface, where delamination between the fiber substrates does not occur (col. 2, lines 3-10). The fibers are integrated with each other by stitch yarns passing through repeatedly in the direction of the fiber substrates (col. 2, lines 23-28). Nishimura further teaches that the positions of the stitch yarns relative to the reinforcing fibers of the fiber substrates are not necessarily regular but can be random (col. 3, lines 41-47). It is possible to apply additional stitch yarns to areas for which further reinforcement integration is necessary (col. 3, lines 41-47).
Since both Combier and Nishimura teach stacked fiber layers for fiber reinforced plastics connecting by binding yarns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binding yarns of Combier to be more frequent in areas that require additional reinforcement, in order to reduce delamination of the layers. It further would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to try the location of the additional binder yarns, in either the central region or the end regions, in order to determine which provides the desired reinforcement and delamination properties. See MPEP 2143. It is noted that an increased amount of binder yarns in a specific region would necessarily decrease the pitch between adjacent binder yarns in that region.
With respect to claim 2, Combier in view of Nishimura teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the central region includes two binder yarns which pass through mutually different paths, and in the end regions one or more of the binder yarns pass through the same pass as the first and second binder yarns in the central region.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Combier in view of Nishimura teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Combier further teaches the binder yarns are preferably of a much smaller size yarn than the yarns forming the various layers so that the woven fabrics may be more readily tailor made for a wide variety of different purposes (col. 1, lines 16-27).
With respect to claim 5, Combier in view of Nishimura teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Combier further teaches the multilayer fabric may be used as a reinforcing media with a plastic matrix material (col. 1, lines 54-66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murakami (JP 2017-106128)1,2 discloses a three-dimensional reinforced fiber fabric in which fibers run in any of the first, second, and third directions that intersect each other in three dimensions comprises a plurality of first layers, each consisting of a plurality of first fiber bundles made of first fibers running in the first direction and arranged in the second direction, and a plurality of second layers, each consisting of a plurality of second fiber bundles made of second fibers running in the second direction and arranged in the first direction (paragraph [0007]). The material comprises a plurality of third fibers that meander between the plurality of first fiber bundles and the plurality of second fiber bundles, at least partially running in the first direction and the third direction, wherein the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers are stacked alternately in the third direction such that two of the plurality of second layers are exposed on the surface, and the third fibers bind the two exposed layers together, and the total cross-sectional area of the plurality of first fibers is substantially the same as the total cross-sectional area of the plurality of second fibers (paragraph [0007]).
Moores (US 4131708) discloses carbon-carbon reinforced composite material selectively modified by one or more implants of a compatible, non-carbon material disposed at selected sites in the material (abstract). The implants of non-carbon material, which should have a melting point below the sublimation temperature of the surrounding carbon matrix and thermal expansibility having a force below the strength of the surrounding carbon matrix, preferably are arranged essentially parallel to one another at selected axial sites in the direction of expected thermal flux (abstract). As can been seen in Fig. 3 the fiber structure comprises multiple stacked fiber layers and multiple interlayer binding yarns (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Machine translation used as reference
Prosecution Insights