DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on October 20, 2025, has been entered.
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 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, and 34 are 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.
Regarding claims 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 28, claim 20 recites a layered web of glass fibers comprising a first web of glass fibers comprising a dry binder, at least one additional web of glass fibers comprising a dry binder, wherein “the dry binder” holds the first web and at least one additional web together and “the dry binder” is as claimed and comprises substantially 100% solids. Based on the recitation of “a dry binder” in the first web and “a dry binder” in the second web, it is unclear if the recitation of “the dry binder” is referencing the dry binder in the first web, the second web, or both. If both, it is recommended that the claim recite both dry binders collectively.
Additionally, the claim recites that “the glass fibers” have a diameter and a length. The claim refers to three sets of glass fibers: a layered web of glass fibers, a first web of glass fibers, and at least one additional web of glass fibers. Similar issues apply to claim 27, as the claim recites “said glass fibers.” It is unclear if the recitation of “the glass fibers” or “said glass fibers” is referencing the first web of glass fibers, the second web of glass fibers, or the layered web of glass fibers. If referencing all of the glass fibers in the layered web, it is recommended that the claim reflect such an interpretation.
Regarding claims 30-32, claim 30 recites a layered web of glass fibers comprising a first web of fibers comprising a dry binder penetrating the first web of glass fibers, and at least one additional web of fibers comprising a dry binder penetrating the at least one additional web of glass fibers. Although the claim recites a layered web of glass fibers and each of a first web of fibers and at least one additional web of fibers, the claim does not recite “a first web of glass fibers” and “at least one additional web of glass fibers.” Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, the claim recites that the layered web has from four to eight web layers and a dry binder, that “the dry binder” holds the first web and at least one additional web together, and that “the dry binder” is as claimed and comprises substantially 100% solids and is the only binder in the layered web of glass fibers. Based on the recitation of “a dry binder” in the first web and “a dry binder” in the second web, it is unclear if the recitation of “the dry binder” is referencing the dry binder in the first web, the at least one additional web, the separate dry binder, or all of the binders. If all, it is recommended that the claim recite each or all of the dry binders collectively.
Additionally, since the claim recites that the layered web has from four to eight web layers and a dry binder, it is unclear if the separately claimed “a dry binder” is redundant or a separate dry binder. Note that it is unclear how the separate dry binder in the limitation “wherein the layered web has from four to eight web layers; and a dry binder” is distinguished from the previously claimed dry binder present in each of the first and the at least one additional web.
Additionally, since the claim requires four to eight web layers, it is unclear if the claim only requires the first web and “at least one additional web of fibers” to comprise the claimed structure and composition and properties (i.e. two layers) and including additional web layers that are not “at least one additional web of fibers,” or if the claim requires each of the first web and any additional web of fibers to form the four to eight web layers, and to comprise the claimed structure and composition and properties. Note that the claims were interpreted as requiring each of the web “layers” to comprise the claimed structure and composition and properties.
Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation of “at least one additional web” in the limitation “the dry binder holding said first web and said at least one additional web together to form a pack” entails only a singular “at least one additional web” or entails “at least one additional web” collectively. For example, it is unclear if the limitation only defines the holding between a first web and at least one additional web, or if the limitation defines the holding between a first web and collectively any additional webs.
Additionally, the claim recites that “the glass fibers” have a diameter and a length. The claim refers to three sets of glass fibers: a layered web of glass fibers, a first web of glass fibers, and at least one additional web of glass fibers. It is unclear if the recitation of “the glass fibers” or “said glass fibers” is referencing the first web of glass fibers, the second web of glass fibers, or the layered web of glass fibers. If referencing all of the glass fibers in the layered web, it is recommended that the claim reflect such an interpretation.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites a layered web of glass fibers comprising a first web of fibers comprising a dry binder penetrating the first web of glass fibers, and at least one additional web of fibers comprising a dry binder penetrating the at least one additional web of glass fibers. Although the claim recites a layered web of glass fibers and each of a first web of fibers and at least one additional web of fibers, the claim does not recite “a first web of glass fibers” and “at least one additional web of glass fibers.” Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, the claim recites that the layered web consists of at least four layers and a dry binder, and that “the dry binder” holds the first web and at least one additional web together and “the dry binder” is as claimed and comprises substantially 100% solids. Based on the recitation of “a dry binder” in the first web and “a dry binder” in the at least one additional web, it is unclear if the recitation of “the dry binder” is referencing the dry binder in the first web, the at least one additional web, the separate dry binder, or all of the binders. If all, it is recommended that the claim recite both dry binders collectively.
Additionally, it is unclear if the separately claimed “a dry binder” in the limitation “wherein the layered web consists of at least four layers; and a dry binder” is redundant or a separate dry binder. Note that it is unclear how the separate dry binder in the limitation “wherein the layered web consists of at least four layers; and a dry binder” is distinguished from the previously claimed dry binder present in each of the first and the at least one additional web.
Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation of “at least one additional web” in the limitation “the dry binder holding said first web and said at least one additional web together to form a pack” entails only a singular “at least one additional web” or entails “at least one additional web” collectively. For example, it is unclear if the limitation only defines the holding between a first web and at least one additional web, or if the limitation defines the holding between a first web and collectively any additional webs.
Additionally, since the claim recites that the layered web consists of at least four layers and a dry binder, it is unclear if each of the “at least four layers” only includes the individual web layers as claimed, or may include additional layers outside the scope of the claimed first web and the at least one additional web. If the latter, it is unclear what “layers” are within the scope of the claimed web that “consists of at least four layers.” Note that since the preamble recites a “layered web of glass fibers formed from individual web layers, the layered web comprising” a first web and at least one additional web, the claims were interpreted as each of the first web and the at least one additional web being a “web layer” within the scope of the claim. Therefore, the recitation of “at least four layers” would appear to reference the claimed web “layer,” although the verbiage of the claim is unclear as set forth above.
Additionally, the claim recites that “the glass fibers” have a diameter. The claim refers to three sets of glass fibers: a layered web of glass fibers, a first web of glass fibers, and at least one additional web of glass fibers. It is unclear if the recitation of “the glass fibers” or “said glass fibers” is referencing the first web of glass fibers, the at least one additional web of glass fibers, or the layered web of glass fibers. If referencing all of the glass fibers in the layered web, it is recommended that the claim reflect such an interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786