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 § 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 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the loom is a.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether the loom recited in claim 15 is a Dooby Loom, Drawloom, Jacquard loom, or a different form of loom. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --wherein the loom is a Jacquard loom--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rousseau (US 2016/0376734 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rousseau teaches a loom for manufacturing a fabric having a variable thickness across a width of the fabric (100) by weaving together a plurality of warp yarns (201) and a plurality of weft yarns (202), the loom comprising: a plurality of heald wires (113), connected to a mechanism capable of moving the heald wires in a vertical direction between a reference position and a first position for opening the warp yarns (110), each heald wire also being provided with an eye through which one of the warp yarns passes (114), a rapier arranged downstream of the heald wires, capable of drawing a weft yarn from a bobbin (implicit; see ¶0037); and a holding device that holds the fabric arranged downstream of the plurality of heald wires and the rapier (300), comprising at least two bearing surfaces, including at least a first bearing surface (310) and a second bearing surface (320) arranged on either side of the fabric in order to compress the fabric between said first and second bearing surfaces (see ¶0039, clamping), wherein at least the first bearing surface is shaped so as to be at least partially complementary to a surface of the fabric (see Fig 9) (Fig 1-9 and ¶0011-0017,0032-0045).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, as applied to claim 1, Rousseau teaches a loom wherein the holding device comprises at least one holding bar having said at least one first bearing surface and wherein the loom is configured for manufacturing a three-dimensional fabric (Fig 1-9 and ¶0011-0017).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Rousseau teaches a loom wherein the loom is a Jacquard loom (Fig 1-9 and ¶0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (US 2016/0376734 A1 – of record), as applied to claim 2, and in view of Fabre (FR-3118896-A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, as applied to claim 2, Rousseau does not teach a method wherein the at least one holding bar comprises a body and a removable portion carrying the first bearing surface, the removable portion being reversibly connected to the body of the holding bar nor wherein the removable portion is in the form of a solid metal bar on which the first bearing surface is formed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, weaving devices, Fabre teaches the known technique wherein the at least one holding bar comprises a body and a removable portion carrying the first bearing surface, the removable portion being reversibly connected to the body of the holding bar nor wherein the removable portion is in the form of a solid metal bar on which the first bearing surface is formed (Fig 1-5 and ¶0043-0073).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the loom disclosed in Rousseau by applying the known technique wherein the at least one holding bar comprises a body and a removable portion carrying the first bearing surface, the removable portion being reversibly connected to the body of the holding bar nor wherein the removable portion is in the form of a solid metal bar on which the first bearing surface is formed disclosed in Fabre to the loom disclosed in Rousseau with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claims 8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (US 2016/0376734 A1 – of record) in view of Fabre (FR-3118896-A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 16, Rousseau teaches a method for manufacturing a fabric having a variable thickness over a width of the fabric, the method comprising weaving a plurality of warp yarns and a plurality of weft yarns by the loom according to one of claim 1, so as to form said fabric (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Rousseau does not teach a method further comprising applying, by the holding device, a compression of the fabric by said first bearing surface and said second bearing surfaces wherein the warp yarns and the weft yarns comprise carbon and/or glass.
However, in the same field of endeavor, weaving devices, Fabre teaches the known technique of applying, by a holding device, a compression of the fabric by said first bearing surface and said second bearing surfaces (Fig 1-5 and ¶0058-0060).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the loom disclosed in Rousseau by applying the known technique of applying, by a holding device, a compression of the fabric by said first bearing surface and said second bearing surfaces disclosed in Fabre to the loom disclosed in Rousseau with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
The prior art of record teaches claimed apparatus. However, the limitations “wherein the warp yarns and the weft yarns comprise carbon and/or glass” and “wherein the fabric is a three-dimensional fabric having the variable thickness over the width of the three-dimensional fabric” recite the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed and do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 17, Rousseau in view of Fabre teaches a method for manufacturing of a composite object comprising a fabric having a determined shape, the method comprising manufacturing said fabric by the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above); winding a reinforcement formed of a portion of said fabric in an imprint of a mold defining an outer surface of the composite object; closing the mold; and introducing a resin into the imprint in order to impregnate the reinforcement; wherein the composite object has a rotationally symmetric shape; and wherein the composite object is a fan casing, a turbine casing, a nozzle casing or a mixer casing for an aeronautical engine (Fabre, ¶0043-0073).
The prior art of record teaches claimed apparatus. However, the limitation “wherein the fabric is a three-dimensional fabric having the variable thickness over the width of the three-dimensional fabric” recite the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed and do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 8, Rousseau teaches a loom wherein the loom is a Jacquard loom (Fig 1-9 and ¶0036).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record discloses a method comprising the apparatus of claim 1. However, the device as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest wherein the holding device comprises a table having the second bearing surface, said second bearing surface being planar.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record discloses a method comprising the apparatus of claim 1. However, the device as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest wherein a distance between the first bearing surface and the second bearing surfaces is chosen so as to reduce an expansion of the fabric in order to reach a minimum expansion threshold.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record discloses a method comprising the apparatus of claim 8. However, the device as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest wherein a distance between the first bearing surface and the second bearing surfaces is controlled so as to minimize an expansion of the fabric.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lanfant (US 20200003061 A1) teaches a method of manufacturing a fabric using a Jacquard loom and injecting resin into a mold cavity. However, Lanfant does not teach or suggest a distance between the first bearing surface and the second bearing surfaces is controlled so as to minimize an expansion of the fabric.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights