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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/26 and 10/23/24 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 2657385B1 issued to Faure et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a fabric comprising:
a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction;
a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction; and
a stitching yarn maintaining the first and second fibers in their respective orientations, the second direction being different than the first direction,
wherein the first fibers comprise at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers, and
wherein the second fibers are a texturized yarn: Applicant is directed to the teachings of Faure et al., [see specifically ¶¶ 0027-0035 and Figure 1] who discloses textile reinforcement fabric [see fig.1] comprising:
first fibers [reference number 5, ¶ 0030] oriented in a first direction;
second fibers [reference number 7, ¶ 0034] oriented in a second direction; and
a stitching yarn [reference number 8, ¶ 0047] maintaining the first and second fibers in their respective orientations, the second direction being different to the first direction [see fig.1], wherein the first fibers comprise glass fibers and/or carbon fibers
[¶ 0030], and the second fibers are a texturized yarn [¶ 0047].
In the figure shown below, the threads of the second ply 4 are oriented at 90° with respect to the warp direction; above the stack of the various reinforcing layers 2, 4, the reinforcement receives an appearance layer 6 which will form the visible face of the reinforcement; this appearance layer 6 is formed by a plurality of wires 7; in one exemplary embodiment, these yarns 7 are polyester-based yarns that have undergone a false-twist texturing treatment that confers them a bulking effect; in the form illustrated in FIG. 1, these threads 7 are oriented approximately 45° relative to the warp direction; the superposition of the various layers of the reinforcement is assembled by a sewing/knitting operation, which makes it possible to place threads 8 that block all the plies 2, 4, 6 together.
PNG
media_image1.png
802
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks a method of producing a fabric, the method comprising:
providing a first layer comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction, the first fibers comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers;
providing a second layer comprising a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction, the second fibers being texturized yarn, the second direction being different from the first direction; and stitching the first and second layers together using a stitching yarn to form the fabric; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Faure et al., who discloses a method of creating a textile reinforcement fabric [see fig.1] comprising:
first fibers [reference number 5, ¶ 0030] oriented in a first direction;
second fibers [reference number 7, ¶ 0034] oriented in a second direction; and
a stitching yarn [reference number 8, ¶ 0047] maintaining the first and second fibers in their respective orientations, the second direction being different to the first direction [see fig.1], wherein the first fibers comprise glass fibers and/or carbon fibers
[¶ 0030], and the second fibers are a texturized yarn [¶ 0047].
It should be noted that this claim was not restricted out as it is not drafted as a true method claim. If major modifications are made to the claim, then it will be restricted out.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the texturized yarn is a texturized glass yarn; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0023.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the second direction is from greater than 0 degrees to about 90 degrees of the first direction; Applicant is directed to see Figure 1.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, further comprising: a first structural layer comprising the first fibers oriented in the first direction;
a first stabilization layer comprising the second fibers oriented in the second direction;
a second stabilization layer comprising a plurality of third fibers oriented in a third direction; and a second structural layer comprising a plurality of fourth fibers oriented in a fourth direction; Applicant is directed to the layers 2 and 4 in D1 can serve as the first structural layer and the second structural layer (or the second stabilization layer), while the layer 6 is the second stabilization layer.
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 12, wherein the second structural layer is disposed between the first structural layer and the first stabilization layer, and wherein the first and fourth directions are different from the second direction; Applicant is directed to Faure et al. at fig.1, with the disposition of layers 9/4/2;
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2657385B1 issued to Faure et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 14 and 16 above, and further evidenced by Estimating the Diameter of Industrial Sewing Thread and Yarn
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the texturized yarn has a minimum diameter of less than about 4 mm; Faure et al. do not disclose the diameter but do disclose the denier that is used. Using the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
74
299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Calculating the Diameter of 70–350 dtex Polyester Yarn
You can estimate the diameter of a polyester yarn from its dtex value using the tex-based formula and the density of polyester.
Step-by-step method
1. Convert dtex to texThe standard relationship is:
tex=dtex10
Example:
70 dtex → 70/10=7.0 tex
350 dtex → 350/10=35.0 tex
2. Use the polyester densityFor polyester (PET), the density is about 1.38 g/cm³
3. Apply the diameter formula
A=CB
Where:
A = yarn diameter (mm)
C = yarn size in tex (g/1000 m)
B = fiber density (g/cm³)
4. Calculate for each dtex value
For 70 dtex:
C=7.0 tex, B=1.38
A=7.01.38=5.072≈2.25 mm
For 350 dtex:
C=35.0 tex, B=1.38
A=35.01.38=25.36≈5.04 mm
5. Interpret resultsThese values are approximate because they assume a single filament of uniform density and no twist or packing effects. In real yarns, twist, filament arrangement, and manufacturing tolerances can change the actual diameter.
Quick reference table (polyester, 1.38 g/cm³)
dtex
tex
Est. diameter (mm)
70
7.0
~2.25
140
14.0
~3.16
210
21.0
~3.97
280
28.0
~4.53
350
35.0
~5.04
As can be seen 70 to about 210+ is less than 4mm.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2657385B1 issued to Faure et al.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the texturized yarn constitutes from about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt % of the fabric; While there is no explicit disclosure of the weight percent of the texturized yarn in Faure et al., and since Applicant’s own specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of texturized yarn is not considered to confer patentability to the claims, as it is a variable that can be modified, by adjusting the weight percent and is considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized the amount, by routine experimentation, the amount of the texturized yarn in Faure et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the texturized yarn comprises a plurality of bulked sections, each bulked section having a diameter of at least 10% greater than a minimum diameter of the texturized yarn; Faure et al., lacks that the texturized yarn has a plurality of bulked sections, each bulked section having a diameter of at least 10% greater than a minimum diameter of the texturized glass yarn. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have each bulked section having a diameter of at least 10% greater than a minimum diameter of the texturized yarn, motivated by the reasoned expectation of improving the stability of the fabric.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 5, wherein the bulked sections of the texturized yarn constitute at least 10% of the length of the texturized yarn; Faure et al., lacks that the texturized yarn of the texturized yarn constitutes at least 10% of the length of the texturized yarn. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have had the bulked sections of the texturized yarn constitute at least 10% of the length of the texturized yarn, motivated by the reasoned expectation of improving the stability of the fabric in a specific direction.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 5, wherein the texturized yarn comprises from about 2 to about 30 of the bulked sections per 10 cm length of the texturized yarn; Faure et al., lacks that the texturized yarn comprises from about 2 to about 30 of the bulked sections per 10 cm length of the texturized yarn. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have had the texturized yarn comprises from about 2 to about 30 of the bulked sections per 10 cm length of the texturized yarn, motivated by the reasoned expectation of improving the stability of the fabric in a specific direction.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the texturized yarn comprises a plurality of bulked sections, and wherein successive bulked sections of the texturized yarn are spaced by a distance in the range of about 0.5 mm to about 80 mm; Faure et al., lacks that the texturized yarn comprises a plurality of bulked sections, and wherein successive bulked sections of the texturized yarn are spaced by a distance in the range of about 0.5 mm to about 80 mm. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have had he texturized yarn comprises a plurality of bulked sections, and wherein successive bulked sections of the texturized yarn are spaced by a distance in the range of about 0.5 mm to about 80 mm, motivated by the reasoned expectation of improving the stability of the fabric in a specific direction.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is from about 400 g/m2 to about 2500 g/m2; While there is no explicit disclosure of the areal weight of the fabric is from about 400 g/m2 to about 2500 g/m2 in Faure et al., and since Applicant’s own specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific areal weight is not considered to confer patentability to the claims, as it is a variable that can be modified, by adjusting the weight percent and is considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized the areal weight, by routine experimentation, the amount of the texturized yarn in Faure et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 1, wherein the first fibers comprise glass fibers, and wherein the glass fibers constitute at least about 50 wt. % of the total weight of the fabric; Faure et al., lacks that the first fibers comprise glass fibers, and wherein the glass fibers constitute at least about 50 wt. % of the total weight of the fabric. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have had the first fibers comprise glass fibers, and wherein the glass fibers constitute at least about 50 wt. % of the total weight of the fabric, motivated by the reasoned expectation of adjusting the proportion of the glass fiber based on performance requirements of the fabric
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 12, wherein the first direction is within about 45° to about 89° of the 0° direction of the fabric, the fourth direction is within about −45° to about −89° of the 0° direction of the fabric, the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the 0° direction of the fabric, and the third direction is substantially aligned with the 0° direction of the fabric; Applicant is directed to Figure 1, and ¶ 0017 and 0043 where the instant reference teaches the different orientation angles and provides the latitude of different angles that are not perpendicular or at 90 °. Additionally, a skilled artisan have optimized, by routine experimentation, the direction of Faure et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2657385B1 issued to Faure et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of EP 1072711 A1 issued to Klethi.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the fabric of claim 12, wherein the first stabilization layer is disposed between the first structural layer and the second structural layer, and wherein the first and fourth directions are different from the second direction; Faure et al., does not disclose the configuration of layers as sought in claim 13 in that the first stabilization layer is only disclosed as an aspect layer, i.e. an exterior layer. However, in order to solve a problem of impregnation by the resin. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have considered a layer with texturized fibers and positioned it in any configuration for good mechanical resistance throughout the composite, as can be seen by the teachings of Klethi at ¶ 0009.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP1990393A1 discloses a hand-tearable, fabric adhesive-tape, and specifically discloses (see Claim 2, the description, [¶ 0019]: it comprises a tape-shaped support (2) and at least one adhesive layer (3) applied to one side of the support (2), wherein the support (2) is made of a fabric predominantly containing threads (5, 6) wherein the longitudinal threads (5) have a count of at least 65 dtex and the longitudinal threads (5) and the transverse threads (6) are, in addition to through the adhesive layer (3), additionally fixed against displacement relative to one another; the threads (5, 6) are fixed relative to one another against displacement, by the use of textured yarns as longitudinal threads (5) and/or transverse threads (6); the effect is utilized in particular that the texturing of the threads stabilizes the fabric, i.e. inhibits a relative displacement of the threads with respect to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights