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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claim 1, and new claims 10-11, filed on 6/25/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in depth of the preform” instead of “in the depth of the preform.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “configured to be removed by machining.” It is unclear if the phrase “configured to” imparts additional structural limitations to the claim beyond the two edge zones being capable of being removed by machining of the preform after at least one of consolidation and densification of the preform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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.
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) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schmidt et al. (US Patent No. 6,874,543 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a preform for structural joints that has a three-dimensional weave architecture with fill fibers woven to provide layer-to-layer interlocking of layers of warp fiber as well as interlocking of fibers within each layer (Abstract). At least two legs extend from a base, the base and legs each having at least two layers of warp fibers (Abstract). The outer ends of the base and legs preferably have tapers formed from terminating layers of warp fibers in a stepped pattern (Abstract). Tracer fibers that include a colored strand and an x-ray opaque strand are woven into the preform at selected locations as a warp fiber (Abstract). The tracer fibers allow for identification of a selected location or a selected portion of the preform through visual inspection or by x-ray image (Abstract). Tracer fibers may be located at the beginning of the tapers, identifying where the thickness of the leg or base begins to decrease (col. 2, lines 24-27).
FIG. 1 is a schematic end view of a pi-shaped preform woven using a fill-tow weave pattern (col. 2, lines 42-44). Preform 11 is formed by weaving one or more fill fibers 13 in a tow pattern through a plurality of warp fibers 15, warp fibers 15 extending perpendicularly to the plane of the tow pattern (col. 2, lines 59-62). FIG. 4 is an isometric view of the preform of FIG. 1 with the legs in an upstanding position and showing the locations of tracer fibers in the preform (col. 2, lines 50-51). Completed, woven, pi-shaped preform 11 is shown in FIG. 4 with legs 19, 21 in the vertical position, forming a clevis 53 (a usable zone) between legs 19, 21 (col. 6, lines 44-46; also see col. 3, lines 13-16). An feature of preform 11 is the replacement of warp fibers 15 at selected locations in preform 11 with tracer fibers 59, shown in FIG. 5 (col. 6, lines 51-53). Useful locations include the inner boundary of tapers 22 on base 17 and tapers 23 on legs 19, 21, such as at locations 55 and 57 of tapers 22 and 23, respectively (col. 6, lines 53-56 and FIG. 4). Therefore, Schmidt teaches at least two tracer filaments woven in the one same, weft or warp, direction and belonging to two different layers of weft filaments or warp filaments, each one being present in a distinct edge zone, as claimed.
The preferred embodiment of tracer fiber 59 is shown in the figure, with stainless steel strand 61 joined to an aramid or carbon strand 63, which is preferably formed of Kevlar® or a similar material (col. 6, lines 58-62 and FIG. 5). Typically, preforms are woven using one type of fiber, for example, carbon (graphite) fibers, for both the warp and fill fibers (col. 7, lines 16-18).
Therefore, Schmidt teaches the claimed limitations, including each of at least two tracer filaments being present in a distinct edge zone, as claimed.
However, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention that the disclosed locations of the tracer filaments would be in distinct edge zones, as represented by portions of the preform to the right or left of the clevis and/or by the tapers of the legs and the base (FIGS. 1 and 4; also see col. 3, lines 13-16, and col. 6, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner notes that the legs 19, 21, the tapers thereof and/or the portions of the preform other than the portion between legs 19 and 21 would be edge zones that are capable of being removed by machining of the preform after at least one of consolidation and densification of the preform. Therefore, the preform of Schmidt meets the claimed limitations. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the legs 19, 21, the tapers thereof and/or the portions of the preform other than the portion between legs 19 and 21 would be zones that are capable of being removed by machining of the preform after at least one of consolidation and densification of the preform as Schmidt teaches that the weave process produces continuous lengths of preform that can be cut to desired lengths (col. 6, lines 49-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US Patent No. 6,874,543 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ouellette et al. (US Patent No. 8,127,802 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt remains as applied above, teaching a pi-shaped preform, wherein useful locations for tracer fibers 59 include locations 55 and 57 of tapers 22 and 23, respectively (col. 2, lines 42-44, col. 6, lines 51-56 and FIG. 4).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose wherein two textile markers are spaced at least 2 cm apart.
However, Ouellette teaches a woven preform for a reinforced composite material, which may be woven flat and folded into shape (Abstract). An example is a 'Pi' preform with a variable width clevis i.e. the width between the upstanding legs varies along the length of the preform (col. 4, lines 8-11). In a particular case (with reference to FIGS. 5a-5f), the width of the clevis 250 varies from 0.30 inches to 0.55 inches, for example (col. 8, lines 58-60). The examiner notes that, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 3, the base can comprise five columns of warp yarns (columns d to h in FIG. 3) making up the width of the clevis (i.e. the width between the upstanding legs) (col. 7, lines 45-48, and cols. 7-8, lines 67-8). Therefore, for warps of equal size, each warp column may be estimated to be at least about 0.3/5 = 0.06 inches wide. FIG. 3 shows that the base further comprises at least about 8 columns of warp yarns (columns l to s) between the clevis and the beginning of the taper on the right side of the base (8 x 0.06 = 0.48 inches = 1.2 cm). FIGS. 3 also shows that (in the upright position) the right leg would comprise at least about 12 warp yarns between the base and the beginning of the taper of the right leg (12 x 0.06 = 0.72 inches = 1.8 cm) (see FIG. 4 and col. 6, lines 37-41). The examiner notes that, when the legs are in an upright position perpendicular to the base, the distance between the beginning of the taper on the right side of the base and the beginning of the taper of the right leg would be the hypotenuse of a right triangle, which would be a distance of about 2.16 cm (1.82 + 1.22 = 2.162) (see FIG. 4 and col. 7, lines 56-58). The preferred embodiment of preform 100 may have any number of central columns, the number of central columns determining the nominal width of the clevis 150 (col. 7, lines 45-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the preform of Schmidt with a spacing of at least about 2.2 cm between the two tracer fibers, where the first tracer fiber is located at the beginning of the taper of the right side of the base, and where the second tracer fiber is located at the beginning of the taper of the right leg of the preform (with the right leg in an upright position perpendicular to the base), in order to obtain pi-shaped preforms that are suitable for use in a variety of reinforced composite materials, as suggested by Ouellette (col. 1, lines 14-18, FIG. 4, and the sections cited above).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Schmidt remains as applied above, teaching that a feature of preform 11 is the replacement of warp fibers 15 at selected locations in preform 11 with tracer fibers 59 (col. 6, lines 51-53).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose wherein the textile markers formed by the tracer filament are textile knees.
However, Ouellette teaches that the preform can be woven using any convenient pattern for the warp fiber, i.e., ply-to-ply, through thickness angle interlock, orthogonal, etc. (col. 4, lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have woven the tracer fibers with a ply-to-ply, through thickness angle interlock or orthogonal pattern when replacing the warp fibers with the tracer fibers because Ouellette teaches that these are convenient patterns that can be used for warp fibers to weave a fiber preform with multiple legs, such as a “Pi” preform (col. 4, lines 6-11 and 22-26). The examiner notes that an orthogonal interlock weaving pattern, for instance, requires the passage of the thread not only throughout the thickness of the preform but also for each column of the weft yarns. Therefore, textile markers formed by the tracer filaments would be textile knees as claimed.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US Patent No. 6,874,543 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Planckeel (FR3096375 A1, attached).
Regarding claims 3-4, Schmidt remains as applied above.
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose wherein the filaments of the first composition are made of silicon carbide, or wherein the tracer filaments of the second composition are alumina filaments.
However, Planckeel teaches a fibrous texture (1) intended to form the fibrous reinforcement of a part made of composite material, the texture having a three-dimensional weave and comprising a first set of longitudinal yarns (2) woven with a second set of transverse yarns (3) comprising carbon or a ceramic material and having a first color, the texture having an external face (4) and comprising at least one marking yarn having a second color different from the first color, said marking yarn being woven at least partially on the surface with yarns from the first or second set of yarns so as to appear at one or more places on the external face of the texture to form a coding element or at least part of an identification information (Abstract). In one embodiment, the wires of the first and second sets of wires may comprise silicon carbide or carbon ([0015]). In one example of an embodiment, the marking wire may include glass, alumina (aluminum oxide), aramid or stainless steel (for example of the Bekinox® type marketed by the company Bekaert) ([0017]). In one embodiment, the marking wire may comprise alumina and the wires of the first and second sets of wires may comprise silicon carbide ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used silicon carbide as the weft and warp yarns and alumina as the tracer (or marking) yarns in the preform of Schmidt in order to provide fibrous reinforcements for the composite material preform, wherein the combination of fibrous reinforcement materials results in a marking thread being clearly visible on the outer face of the texture, as suggested by Planckeel (Abstract, [0019] and [0057]).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Schmidt in view of Planckeel does not explicitly disclose wherein the textile markers formed by the tracer filament are textile knees.
However, Planckeel teaches a weaving pattern in which four first layers of warp yarns c1, c2, c3 and c4 are located near the outer face 4 of the fibrous texture 1, with four weft yarns t11, t12, t13 and t14 ([0045]). The t12 weft yarn indicated in dotted lines is the marking yarn which has a different color from the other warp and weft yarns ([0045]). In this example, the surface weave of texture 1 is two-dimensional, satin-type, where the surface-appearing weft yarn catches a single yarn from the warp layer every three warp yarns in each pattern ([0046]). The examiner notes that, as is shown in FIGS. 5A to 5C, the weft marking yarns t12, t22 and t32 are masked below layers of warp yarns before appearing on external face 4 at points 211, 221-22 and 231-235, where they pass over a single yarn and are then masked again below layers of warp yarns ([0044] and [0047]). Planckeel also teaches that the marking thread can take the place (or replace) of a thread from the first or second set of threads (the warp or weft yarns) ([0009]; also see [0005]-[0006] and [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used, as the tracer yarn replacing a warp yarn in the preform of Schmidt, a yarn that is masked below layers of weft yarns before and after passing over a single yarn from the weft layer at the external surface of the preform in order to provide a weaving pattern that can result in the tracer (or marking) yarn being visible in identifiable patterns, as suggested by Planckeel ([0005] and [0044]-[0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: ‘The terms "usable zone" and "edge zone" are expressly defined in the specification…. The specification expressly states: "In this application, the usable zone of a preform will be called the textile zone which will actually form the fiber preform of the final component."…. "It is during this final machining step that the edge zones of the preform are removed."…. The express lexicography therefore requires that the claimed "usable zone" be the textile region that forms the final composite component, and that each claimed "edge zone" be a region that is removed by post-densification machining. As shown below, Schmidt discloses no such architecture…. Schmidt describes the clevis as a structural void that receives another component during installation, not as a textile zone that becomes the final composite part…. Schmidt expressly teaches that the tracer fibers at locations 55, 57 of those tapers are used after manufacture to "determin[e] the perimeter of upper surface 49 to effect repairs on the installation of preform 11 after curing," Schmidt, col. 6, lines 65-col. 7, line 6, and to facilitate "the verification of correct orientation of an installed preform 11 during X-ray inspection after installation." Schmidt, col. 7, lines 11-14. These tracer-fiber locations must necessarily persist in the installed product. They are, by definition, not in zones that are removed by machining.’
Regarding these contentions, Schmidt teaches that a completed, woven, pi-shaped preform 11 is shown in FIG. 4 with legs 19, 21 in the vertical position, forming a clevis 53 (a usable zone) between legs 19, 21 (col. 6, lines 44-46; also see col. 3, lines 13-16). It is the examiner’s position that the portion of the woven preform between legs 19 and 21 forms a usable zone as claimed. In addition, while claim 1 recites the limitation “the fiber preform having a usable zone extending between two edge zones,” claim 1 further recites the limitation “each tracer filament being present in a distinct edge zone” (emphasis added). Therefore the edge zone in which each claimed tracer filament is present is not limited to the two edge zones that the claimed usable zone extends between. In addition, applicant’s specification does not provide a special definition for the term “edge zone.” Therefore, the tapered portions of the base and legs in FIG. 4 of Schmidt (for example), which include the locations 55 and 57 selected for Schmidt’s tracer fibers, meet the claimed “distinct edge zone” limitation. With respect to new claim 11, which includes the limitation “wherein each of the two edge zones is a portion of the preform configured to be removed by machining of the preform after at least one of consolidation and densification of the preform,” this limitation is interpreted as an intended use limitation. The legs 19, 21, the tapers thereof and/or the portions of the preform other than the portion between legs 19 and 21 would be edge zones that are capable of being removed by machining of the preform after at least one of consolidation and densification of the preform. Therefore, the preform of Schmidt meets the claimed limitations.
Applicant contends that Schmidt nowhere teaches that the tracer fibers at locations 55 and the tracer fibers at locations 57 lie along the one same weft or warp direction.
Regarding this contention, Schmidt teaches that tracer fibers that include a colored strand and an x-ray opaque strand are woven into the preform at selected locations as a warp fiber (Abstract). An feature of preform 11 is the replacement of warp fibers 15 at selected locations in preform 11 with tracer fibers 59, shown in FIG. 5 (col. 6, lines 51-53 and FIG. 1). Useful locations include the inner boundary of tapers 22 on base 17 and tapers 23 on legs 19, 21, such as at locations 55 and 57 of tapers 22 and 23, respectively (col. 6, lines 53-56 and FIG. 4). Therefore, Schmidt teaches that the tracers fibers are warp fibers, which meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant contends the following: ‘Schmidt does not disclose that the tracer fibers at locations 55 and the tracer fibers at locations 57 occupy two different layers of weft or warp filaments in the three-dimensional weave. The locations are at different structural sub-features (base 17 vs. legs 19, 21), but Schmidt is silent as to the layer assignment of those tracers within the three-dimensional weave architecture…. Because Schmidt is silent on the layer assignment of tracers 55 and 57, inherent disclosure of "two different layers of weft filaments or warp filaments" is not established.’
Regarding these contentions, Schmidt teaches that useful locations for the tracer fibers include locations 55 and 57 of tapers 22 and 23, respectively (col. 6, lines 53-56 and FIG. 4). As shown in FIG. 4, which is an isometric view of the preform of FIG. 1, locations 55 and 57 are each at the surface of the preform, with location 57 at the surface of leg 21, and location 55 at the surface of base 17. Locations 55 and 57 are also shown as being located at the beginning of tapers 22 and 23, respectively (FIG. 4; also see col. 2, lines 24-27). Therefore, as can be seen in FIGS. 1 and 2, location 55 would be in layer 5 of the preform and location 57 would be in layer 4 of the preform (in the configuration of the preform shown in FIGS. 1 and 2). Alternatively, with the upright configuration of the legs of the preform represented by FIG. 4 (and counting in FIG. 1 from what would be the top tip of leg 21 when the legs are in an upright position, labeled position “E”), location 55 would be in the 21st layer and location 57 would be in the 9th layer of the preform. Therefore, Schmidt teaches tracers fibers belonging to two different layers of warp filaments, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ouchi (JPH03206148A, attached as two translations in one document) teaches wherein warps 3, 4 having different colors are integrated into the opposite parts of the obverse and reverse faces of a glass fiber woven fabric formed by multiple weaving (Abstract). The tracer yarn is usually inserted at the end part of the woven fabric (Abstract). Ouchi teaches that since the part where this tracer yarn is inserted is colored, since it is undesirable for use as a product, it is usually inserted at the end of the fabric (page 4, lines 10-11 and page 9, lines 27-30).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights