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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14-15, 17, 22-24 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 recites, “wherein the glass and the at least one filler are randomly distributed throughout the composite product,” the applicant relies on FIG.2(d) which is a composite panel manufactured from waste glass powder and textile aggregate.”
The examiner has considered the figure and explanation, however, the figure and explanation of the figure is not enough support for the newly claimed limitations. Firstly, the figure is blurry that the filler(s) are not properly visible to determine the formation of distribution and there is a lack of any description of the filler(s) being distributed on a panel/composite in a specific way in the figure or body of the specification.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites, “wherein an average length of the textile is between about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm,” the examiner has considered the claim limitations, however, the specification lacks support for the textile having an average length. The specification discloses “paper cups and textiles were mechanically cut using a shredder to form 10-30 mm aggregates and textiles can be further ground by knife mills to 0.5 mm size fiber” which does not disclose an average length of the textile. Therefore, there is a lack of support for the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 23, 24, and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/175134 (hereinafter, GURIJALA).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 24, and 55, GURIJALA teaches fiber-reinforced composites which comprises continuous fibers and discontinuous agents (Abstract; p. 6). A binder may be present in order to bind the continuous fibers and/or the discontinuous agents within the composite (pp. 5-6) in the amount of at least 1% to 25% of the mass of the composite (p. 15). The binder includes thermoset resin (p. 15).
The continuous fibers may together define a fabric or other substrate, e.g., textile. The continuous fibers include aramid, nylon, cotton, or any other natural or synthetic fibers (p. 8) (which reads on a textile which is fabric composed of aramid, nylon, cotton, or any other natural or synthetic fiber). The amount of continuous fibers is at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (p. 9). The discontinuous agents may include borosilicate, glass, non-magnetic particles (i.e., glass) and etc. in an amount of at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (pp. 12). The non-magnetic particles include glass in the amount of at least 1% to at least 97% of the volume of the composite (p. 14).
The composites may be used in a wider variety of applications including reinforcement for pressure vessels, components for wind turbines, shims used in jacking heavy structures, sporting equipment, building or construction materials, laminates or encapsulants for electronic devices, battery components, or panels for vehicles such as automobiles, aircraft, marine vehicles, or spacecraft (p. 7).
However, GURIJALA does not teach a preferred embodiment of the continuous fibers and discontinuous agents in preferred amounts.
Given GURIJALA teaches at least 1% to no more than 97% of continuous fibers (e.g., textile, fabric, nylon, aramid, cotton, and etc.) (which is within the claimed range of between about 1% and about 30% as recited in claim 1) and between about 1% and about 5% (as recited in claim 55)) and at least 1% to no more than 97% of discontinuous agents (e.g., glass), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to the claim limitations, “wherein the glass and the at least one filler are randomly distributed throughout the composite product,” GURIJALA teaches the fiber-reinforced composites having the non-limiting embodiment wherein the composite is without magnetic alignment as shown in FIG. 1A (Abstract) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes the position that the fibers (composed of discontinuous agents (i.e., glass) and continuous fibers (i.e., textile)) are randomly distributed on the composite because the lack of magnetic particles present would not align the fibers in an orderly manner. Furthermore, discontinuous fibers can be randomly oriented to yield directionally varying mechanical properties (p. 2, lines 4-5).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, GURIJALA teaches the composites comprises a binder including a thermoset resin, epoxy, and vinyl ester resin (p. 15).
Regarding claim 23, GURIJALA teaches the method used to apply a slurry or other liquid to the substrate. The liquid may be coated or painted onto the substrate. The liquid may be used to coat the continuous fibers (p. 17).
Regarding claims 53 and 54, as discussed above in paragraph 10 above, GURIJALA teaches fiber-reinforced composites which comprises continuous fibers (e.g., textile, fabric, nylon, cotton, and etc.) and discontinuous agents (Abstract; p. 6). The amount of continuous fibers is at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (p. 9). The discontinuous agents may include borosilicate, glass, non-magnetic particles (i.e., glass) and etc. in an amount of at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (pp. 12).
However, GURIJALA does not teach a preferred embodiment of the continuous fibers and discontinuous agents in preferred amounts.
Given GURIJALA teaches at least 1% to no more than 97% of continuous fibers (e.g., textile, fabric, nylon, aramid, cotton, and etc.) and at least 1% to no more than 97% of discontinuous agents (e.g., glass), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 56, GURIJALA teaches the continuous fibers has an average length of at least 1 mm (p. 7, line 23 to p. 8, line 3).
Claims 8, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/175134 (hereinafter, GURIJALA) in view of WEBSTER (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0204540, hereinafter WEBSTER).
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 22, GURIJALA substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 10-12 above. More specifically, GURIJALA teaches a composite (e.g., panel) comprising discontinuous agents (i.e., glass) and non-magnetic particles (i.e., glass particles).
However, GURIJALA does not teach wherein the glass has a particle size less than or equal to about 5 mm or between about 1 micron and about 5 mm (claim 8), wherein the glass is a waste glass (claim 11), and the composite product of claim 1 comprises between about 60% and 100% of waste material (claim 22).
In the same field of endeavor of composites for panels (Abstract; [0042]), WEBSTER teaches a composite/cast articles containing a composite material that includes a particulate glass system in a polymer matrix [0002]. The glass particles are formed of a recycled glass or post-industrial glasseous mineral waste [0015] in an amount of at least about 50 wt% based on the total weight of the matrix, more preferably, in an amount of about 60 wt% to about 95 wt% ([0016]; Claim 2). Note: recycled glass or post-industrial glasseous mineral waste satisfies waste glass as claimed. The average particle size of the glass particles is up to about 0.07 mm, more preferably from about 0.6 mm to about 10 mm [0018]. The cast articles containing recycled glass material and a polymer matrix, results in articles which are both environmentally friendly and sufficiently durable as compared to other traditional natural materials or other composite materials [0005].
Given GURIJALA teaches the composite comprises glass, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the recycled glass particles of WEBSTER with the composite of GURIJALA for the benefit of obtaining composite articles (e.g., panels) that are both environmentally friendly and sufficiently durable as compared to other traditional natural materials or other composite materials as taught by WEBSTER [0005].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/175134 (hereinafter, GURIJALA) in view of WO 2019/122648.
To further advance the prosecution of this invention, MERCADER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0017675, hereinafter MERCADER) which is an English equivalent of WO 2019/122648 will be used in the rejection.
Regarding claim 17, GURIJALA substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 10-12 above. More specifically, GURIJALA teaches a fiber-reinforced composites comprising continuous fibers in which may together define a fabric or other substrate (e.g., textile) which includes carbon fibers and cotton fibers (p. 8) in the amount at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (p. 9). The composites may be used in a wider variety of applications including components for wind turbines (p. 7).
However, GURIJALA does not teach wherein the textile is clothing, linen, bedding, blankets or curtains.
In the same field of endeavor of composites for turbine wind blade (Abstract; [0029-0030]) containing cotton fibers derived from manufactured products, particularly textiles [0010-0011], MERCADER teaches a method of producing cotton fibers by recycling cotton (used cotton fibers) from a manufactured product made from cotton, such as textile products including a clothing, furnishing or household linen product, for example a sheet, an item of work clothing, a T-shirt, a polo shirt, trousers, etc. made from cotton [0013]. The composite material consisting of the assembly of several different materials or elementary constituents bonded together, more particularly mechanically strong long fibers (i.e., carbon fibers) distributed in a matrix of organic polymer resin [0125 and 0156]. The recycled cotton offers numerous advantages, from an environmental point of view, but also economic point of view. The cost price of used cotton is indeed substantially less than that of conventional precursor materials [0008 and 0155]. The obtained wind turbine blades possess a target length and mechanical properties to reduce the power required by the structure motors [0031-0032].
Given GURIJALA teaches fiber-reinforced composite used to manufacture components for wind turbines (p. 7) and the composite comprises cotton fibers (p. 8), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the recycled cotton fibers made from textile products of MERCADER with the composite of GURIJALA for the benefit of obtaining composites for wind turbine blades containing a target length and mechanical properties to reduce the power required by the structure motors and the recycled cotton fibers are cost and environmental effective as taught by MERCADER.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/175134 (hereinafter, GURIJALA) in view of HATTAR et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0157865, hereinafter HATTAR).
Regarding claim 17, GURIJALA substantially teaches the present invention, see paragraphs 10-12 above. More specifically, GURIJALA teaches a fiber-reinforced composites comprising continuous fibers in which may together define a fabric or other substrate (e.g., textile) which includes carbon fibers and cotton fibers (p. 8) in the amount at least 1% to no more than 97% of the mass of the composite (p. 9). The composites may be used in a wider variety of applications including components for panels for vehicles such as automobiles, aircraft, marine vehicles, or spacecraft (p. 7).
However, GURIJALA does not teach wherein the textile is clothing, linen, bedding, blankets or curtains.
In the same field of endeavor of composite article for panels, HATTAR teaches fiber composite materials which includes natural fibers such as cotton fibers. The cotton fibers from fabrics/textiles and clothes are more durable, strong and attrition/abrasion resistant [0058]. The article of manufacture is a car panel (e.g., a door, hood, roof, trunk cover, etc.) [0091] and a glass article (e.g., panel for building industry) [0092].
Given GURIJALA teaches fiber-reinforced composite may be used in a wider variety of applications including components for panels for vehicles such as automobiles, aircraft, marine vehicles, or spacecraft (p. 7), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the cotton fibers from fabrics/textiles and clothes of HATTAR with the fiber-reinforced composite of GURIJALA for the benefit of obtaining properties including durability, strength, and attrition/abrasion resistance as taught by HATTAR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The response is insufficient to rebut the obviousness rejection. In view of the amendments, the Office Action mailed 09/05/2025 has been modified accordingly.
Firstly, the applicant argues that the composite products of GURIJALA have a different structure compared to the present invention as discussed in the Exhibit 3 of the Declaration wherein the present invention is randomly distributed glass and short textile fiber.
The examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments and Affidavit, however, the examiner disagrees that GURIJALA does not the teach the claim limitations. As discussed above, GURIJALA teaches the fiber-reinforced composites having the non-limiting embodiment wherein the composite is without magnetic alignment as shown in FIG. 1A (Abstract) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes the position that the fibers (composed of discontinuous agents and continuous fibers) are randomly distributed on the composite because the lack of magnetic particles present would not align the fibers in an orderly manner. Furthermore, discontinuous fibers can be randomly oriented to yield directionally varying mechanical properties (p. 2, lines 4-5).
Although, it is a non-preferred embodiment, all disclosures of the prior art, including non-preferred embodiment, must be considered. See In re Lamberti and Konort, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1967); In re Snow 176 USPQ, 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). Also, non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278(CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399.
Secondly, the applicant argues the randomly disturbed textile fiber provide significant advantages to the composites of the present application which are surprising in view of GURIJALA as GURIJALA teaches different functional benefits and different ways to achieve them. Specifically, the present application found that the incorporation of short textile fibers with an average length of less than about 5 mm as a secondary filler provides multiple functional benefits such as color enhancement, improved handling during production (reduced stickiness), greater dimensional stability with reduced cracking and stress whitening and enhanced flexural strength. In addition, the composite product comprising textiles are self-extinguishing and possess improved acoustic properties compared to general ceramic tiles as shown in Exhibit 2 of the Declaration. The composite products of the present application with high amounts of glass have demonstrated to have high flexural strength, low density, low water absorption, good resistance to wear and good stain resistance. Thus, the specific combination of features as presently claimed shows unexpected results over the prior art. It is therefore submitted that the present invention is not obvious in view of GURIJALA.
The examiner has considered the applicant’s Exhibits in the Affidavit for a showing of unexpected results but the Exhibits are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims are not limited to the specific components and the amount of the components (i.e. short textile fibers having a length of < 5 mm in the amount of 0%, 1.5%, 3%, and 5%). The Exhibits does not show what filler was used selected from textile and coffee grounds, amount of glass present (ranging from about 55% to about 90% by weight), and the amount of binder present (ranging from 5% and about 45%) as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, it has been held that to overcome a reasonable case of prima facie obviousness given claim must be commensurate in scope with any showing of unexpected results, In re Greenfield, 197 USPQ 227.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763