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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 filed on 9/29/2025 are currently pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2025 and 10/9/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “and s that the rest of the non-exited warp…” in line 15 should likely be “and so that the rest of the non-exited warp”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupe (FR 2074195 A1), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action, in view of Jones (US 2024/0117533).
Regarding claim 1, Coupe discloses: A method for three-dimensionally weaving a texture between a plurality of layers of warp yarns superimposed along a vertical direction and a plurality of weft yarns extending along a horizontal direction, the weaving being performed by means of a weaving loom (100) comprising a plurality of control yarns (113), a first end of each control yarn being connected to a Jacquard mechanism (101) able to displace the control yarns along the vertical direction between a neutral position and at least one position for opening the warp yarns (“one end of each control thread being connected to a Jacquard mechanism capable of moving the control threads in a vertical direction between a reference position and a first warp thread opening position located above the reference position” paragraph 0002, fourth paragraph of page 2; “the rails 113 and their associate eyelet 114 extending into a zone Z in which the rails 113 and the eyelets 114 are animated by a substantially vertical oscillating movement represented by the double arrow F” second full paragraph of page 6), each control yarn being further provided with an eyelet (114) through which a warp yarn passes, the weaving loom further comprising at least one rapier (120) present downstream of the control yarns able to pass through the weaving loom along a fixed horizontal reference path and to draw a weft yarn from a bobbin (“lance 120, located downstream of the rails 113, is composed of a rod 121, the first end of which is connected to an actuation system (not shown in figures 3 and 4) allowing 30 to animate the rod 121 with a back-and-forth movement along the double direction D121. The other end of the rod 121 is equipped with a gripper 122 which, after passing through the swarm 104 during the outward journey of the rod 12, comes to grasp a weft yarn 204 stored on a bobbin 130 to unwind it in the swarm 104 during the return journey of the rod 121” page 6-7).
Coupe does not explicitly disclose: wherein the method further comprises at least one warp exit step comprising: displacing, along the vertical direction all or part of the warp yarns of at least one underlying layer of warp yarns of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, said displaced warp yarns being intended to be exited from the texture, over a determined distance extending beyond a layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, so that the displaced warp yarn(s) are disposed above the reference path and so that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns is disposed below the reference path, or so that the displaced warp yarn(s) are disposed below the reference path and so that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns are disposed above the reference path, then the rapier passing through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarn.
However, Jones teaches a method for weaving with at least one warp exit step comprising: displacing, along the vertical direction all or part of the warp yarns of at least one underlying layer of warp yarns of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, said displaced warp yarns being intended to be exited from the texture, over a determined distance extending beyond a layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, so that the displaced warp yarn(s) are disposed above the reference path and so that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns is disposed below the reference path, or so that the displaced warp yarn(s) are disposed below the reference path and so that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns are disposed above the reference path (“Controlling the lead-out portion L of the embedded two to exit from the embedded taper structure comprises moving the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow past one of the locally outermost tows. For example, if the embedded tow is a warp tow A, moving the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow A1, A2 past one of the locally outermost tows A0 may comprise crossing the embedded tow A1, A2 with the locally outermost tow A0 in a reed space for the stack SA of a loom by raising or lowering the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow A1, A0” paragraph 79).
Jones teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of 3D weaving with yarn exits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the warp exit step as taught by Jones to the method of Coupe in order to “produce a woven structure that is tapered in thickness” (see Jones, paragraph 56) while maintaining “a smoother outer surface of the tapered woven structure” (Jones, paragraph 65). Examiner notes that, as modified, Coupe teaches the limitation then the rapier passing through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarn as Coupe teaches “The other end of the rod 121 is equipped with a gripper 122 which, after passing through the swarm 104 during the outward journey of the rod 12, comes to grasp a weft yarn 204 stored on a bobbin 130 to unwind it in the swarm 104 during the return journey of the rod 121” (page 6-7), thus the rapier passes through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarn at least on the outward journey of the rod.
Regarding claim 2, Coupe as modified discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein during the weaving of at least one weft column, a plurality of underlying layers of warp yarns is intended to be exited from the texture beyond one of the warp yarn layers present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns (Jones, “one or more embedded (or internal) tows A1, A2 exiting from the multi-layer weave at respective taper positions D1, D2” paragraph 64), the following warp yarn exit step being repeated for each layer of warp yarns to be exited beyond said layer present on the surface: displacing, along the vertical direction, the layer of warp yarns to be exited over a determined distance extending beyond the layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, so that the displaced layer of warp yarns is disposed above the reference path and below the previously displaced layers of warp yarns intended to be exited from the texture and so that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns is disposed below the reference path, or so that the displaced layer of warp yarns is disposed below the reference path and above the previously displaced layers of warp yarns intended to be exited from the texture and s that the rest of the non-exited warp yarns is disposed above the reference path (Jones, “Controlling the lead-out portion L of the embedded two to exit from the embedded taper structure comprises moving the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow past one of the locally outermost tows. For example, if the embedded tow is a warp tow A, moving the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow A1, A2 past one of the locally outermost tows A0 may comprise crossing the embedded tow A1, A2 with the locally outermost tow A0 in a reed space for the stack SA of a loom by raising or lowering the lead-out portion L of the embedded tow A1, A0” paragraph 79); then the rapier passing through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarns (Coupe teaches “The other end of the rod 121 is equipped with a gripper 122 which, after passing through the swarm 104 during the outward journey of the rod 12, comes to grasp a weft yarn 204 stored on a bobbin 130 to unwind it in the swarm 104 during the return journey of the rod 121” (page 6-7), thus the rapier passes through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarn at least on the outward journey of the rod).
Regarding claim 3, Coupe as modified discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the warp yarn exit step further comprises, after the rapier has passed through the weaving loom without drawing any weft yarns: part of the displaced warp yarns or part of the displaced layer moving along the vertical direction so that said part of the displaced warp yarns or of the displaced layer is disposed below the reference path and so that the other part of the displaced warp yarns or of the displaced yarn layer is disposed above the reference path, then the rapier passing through the weaving loom along the reference path by drawing a weft yarn so as to interlink the displaced warp yarns together (Coupe teaches “The other end of the rod 121 is equipped with a gripper 122 which, after passing through the swarm 104 during the outward journey of the rod 12, comes to grasp a weft yarn 204 stored on a bobbin 130 to unwind it in the swarm 104 during the return journey of the rod 121” (page 6-7), thus the rapier passes through the weaving loom along the reference path without drawing any weft yarn at least on the outward journey of the rod, then grasps a weft yarn and passes through the weaving loom along the reference path again on the return journey).
Regarding claim 4, Coupe as modified discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the weaving loom further comprises a guide device (Coupe, 160) present downstream of the plurality of control yarns and of the rapier, the guide device being able to move along the vertical direction so as to move the woven texture upwards or downwards relative to a horizontal reference plane comprising the reference path (Coupe, “holding device 160 comprises a lower jaw 161 and an upper jaw 162, each connected to an actuating means (not shown in Figures 3 and 4) which is capable of holding the woven texture 208, on the one hand, and of moving the jaws 160 and 161 along a vertical direction Dv” page 7).
Regarding claim 5, Coupe as modified discloses: The method according to claim 4, wherein the guide device comprises an upper guide bar (Coupe, 162) and a lower guide bar (Coupe, 161) configured to be positioned in contact with the woven texture and on either side of said texture along the vertical direction, the minimum value of the spacing between the guide bars corresponding to the thickness of the non-compacted woven texture (Coupe, “holding device 160 comprises a lower jaw 161 and an upper jaw 162, each connected to an actuating means (not shown in Figures 3 and 4) which is capable of holding the woven texture 208, on the one hand, and of moving the jaws 160 and 161 along a vertical direction Dv” page 7).
Regarding claim 9, Coupe as modified discloses that the loom can be used “for the production of fibrous reinforcement structures of blades made of composite material for aircraft engines” (page 4) but does not name a particular fiber reinforcement material and therefore does not explicitly disclose: carbon, glass or ceramic fibers.
However, Jones teaches that carbon fibers are commonly used as fibrous reinforcement structures and used in weaving methods (“it is known to use composite materials comprising a matrix reinforced with fibre reinforcement material such as carbon fibre for components” (paragraph 3; see also paragraph 4).
Jones teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of 3D weaving with yarn exits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to perform the method of Coupe as modified using carbon fibers, since carbon fiber is a known fiber reinforcement material, as taught by Jones, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Coupe as modified discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the woven texture is intended to form a fibrous reinforcement for a composite material part of an aeronautical engine (Coupe, “the use of the loom according to the invention for the production of fibrous reinforcement structures of blades made of composite material for aircraft engines” page 4)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not explicitly disclose, alone or in combination: The method according to claim 5, wherein the spacing between the guide bars increases during the displacement along the vertical direction of all or part of the warp yarns intended to be exited from the texture over a determined distance extending beyond a layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, as required by claim 6. The closest prior art is Coupe as modified by Jones, which does teach that the guide bars can open/close to clamp or hold the woven material, but it does not specifically disclose that it does so during the warp yarn exit step.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not explicitly disclose, alone or in combination: The method according to claim 5, wherein the guide bars of the guide device are configured to move along the vertical direction as a function of the vertical position of the eyelets of the harness during the displacement along the vertical direction of all or part of the warp yarns intended to be exited from the texture over a determined distance extending beyond a layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, so that in each plane of the weaving loom perpendicular to the reference path, the length between the harness and the woven texture of the lowest warp yarn located above the reference path corresponds to between 90% and 110% of the length between the harness and the woven texture of the highest warp yarn located below the reference path, as required by claim 7. The closest prior art is Coupe as modified by Jones, which does teach that the guide bars can open/close to clamp or hold the woven material, but it does not specifically disclose that it does so during the warp yarn exit step, nor does it disclose the claimed percentage range for the lengths.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not explicitly disclose, alone or in combination: The method according to claim 4, the guide device being configured to move between a first position and a second position along the vertical direction as a function of the vertical position of the eyelets of the harness after the displacement along the vertical direction of all or part of the warp yarns intended to be exited from the texture over a determined distance extending beyond a layer of warp yarns present on the surface of the plurality of layers of warp yarns, so that in each plane of the weaving loom perpendicular to the reference path, the length between the harness and the woven texture of the highest warp yarn located below the reference path when the guide device is in the first position is comprise between 90% and 110% of the length between the harness and the woven texture of said warp yarn when it is the lowest located above the reference path when the guide device is in the second position, as required by claim 8. The closest prior art is Coupe as modified by Jones, which does teach that the guide bars can open/close to clamp or hold the woven material, but it does not specifically disclose that it does so during the warp yarn exit step, nor does it disclose the claimed percentage range for the lengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Goering (US 2009/0311462), Goering (US 2008/0261474), and Risicato (US 2019/0224885) teach methods for three-dimensional weaving.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732