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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 30 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (product), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01 October 2024.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-7, 11, and 13-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstetter et al. (WO 2018/115736, citing US 2019/0084252 as an English translation) in view of Baucom et al. (US 5,057,338).
Regarding Claim 1, Hochstetter et al. (WO’736) teach a process for manufacturing an impregnated fibrous material comprising at least one fibrous material made of continuous fibers and at least one thermoplastic polymer matrix, said process comprising: a step of pre-impregnating said fibrous material with a thermoplastic polymer matrix in powder form, wherein said pre-impregnation step is carried out dry in a tank comprising a fluidized bed (Abstract), said pre-impregnation step being carried out while a mass m of the powder is fluidized at a level h and the mass m of the powder present in the tank substantially constant with the exclusion of any electrostatic process with charging (NOTE: intentionality, or mindset, for performing a process is not given patentable weight for the claimed process, only whether the prior art teaches or fairly suggests an electrostatic process or an omission thereof).
WO’736 teach a D50 of the thermoplastic polymer powder particles between 30-300, in particular 50-200 micron, and more particularly in a narrow range from 70 to 200 micron [0037]. Additionally, in examples, WO’736 reports a D50 with a single value (e.g. Example 1: D50 = 100 micron; Example 2: D50 =115 micron; Example 3: D50 = 120 micron). WO’736 fails to teach a specific tolerance. However, given that D50 is reported as a single value in some examples, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to actually practice the invention with that specific value of D50, including within an arbitrarily close or suitable tolerance, including 20% or less, in order to ensure a stable process and uniformity in coverage, size, and density of a coating, especially where the art teaches a single D50 value, through routine optimization absent evidence of criticality.
WO’736 fails to teach expressly that the level h is from hi to hi-3% during an implementation of the pre-impregnation step, where hi is an initial level of the powder in said tank at a start of the implementation of the pre-impregnation step, said mass m being from mi to mi ± 0.5% during the implementation of the pre- impregnation step, where mi is an initial mass of the powder in said tank at the start of the implementation of the pre-impregnation step. WO’736 suggests that mass should be kept fairly constant, since the fluidized bed should be kept fairly constant [0193] and provides evidence that height is a result-effective variable, since particles should be at a flow-rate and at a height to prevent the particles from either falling or flying away [0191-0192]. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the coating material at a constant mass as the simplest model of process control to ensure a constant and fairly predictable supply of impregnating powder to the fibrous material at a fairly constant density per volume of fluid without either running out of impregnating powder or having it accumulate in or overflow from the fluidized bed; also, mass balance over time is a matter of routine optimization to ensure a sufficient level of impregnating material without either running out or accumulating too much. Although it is considered that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered both constant mass flow and constant height of powder within a margin of error, including the recited level of error, to be an obvious modification through routine optimization and a matter that is within the skill of a competent technician, not rising to the level of invention given the teachings of WO’776, Baucom et al. (US’338) is also provided as further evidence of obviousness of optimizing a process to use constant mass flow as one of the easiest ways to achieve steady state for reliability and simplicity of operation (col. 8, lines 12-21). Thus, not only is WO’736 considered sufficient on its own to have suggested to have suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a constant mass and fairly constant height within some desirable tolerance -- a matter of process optimization, but in addition, US’338 expressly gives specific reasons in the art why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of WO’736 to provide a fairly constant mass and a fairly constant height (e.g. within the recited tolerances) through routine optimization in addition to those earlier provided by Examiner without citing to US’338.
Additionally, WO’736 teaches a particle size of 30 to 300 microns, in particular 50 to 200 micron, more particularly from 70 to 200 micron [0037] and Fig. 14 shows particles with a diameter of about 16 micron (400 micron/ 25 particles). WO’736 fails to teach sucking up particles. US’338 suggests sucking up particles that leave a fluidized bed to collect for recycle (col. 7, line 62 through col. 8, line 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of WO’736 by sucking up particles with a diameter within the recited range that leave the fluidized bed, because US’338 suggests sucking up particles that leave a fluidized bed for recycle, and WO’736 teaches particles of the fluidized bed within the recited range.
Regarding Claim 2, WO’736 teaches a volume mean diameter D50 of thermoplastic polymer powder particles of the powder is from 30 to 300 μm [0037].
Regarding Claim 3, WO’736 fails to teach that the tank is replenished with the thermoplastic polymer matrix in powder form to compensate for a consumption of said thermoplastic polymer matrix by the pre-impregnation of said fibrous material. However, one would not consider that the process of WO’736 can be performed only once and then discarded. Additionally, WO’736 teaches that the composition should remain substantially constant [0193]. It would have been obvious to replenish the thermoplastic polymer matrix in powder form to compensate for a consumption of said thermoplastic polymer matrix by the pre-impregnation of said fibrous material in order to perform the process continuously, to repeat the process for the impregnation of more fibrous material, and/ or to maintain a constant composition in the tank.
Regarding Claims 5-6, WO’736 teach a D50 of the thermoplastic polymer powder particles between 30-300, in particular 50-200 micron, and more particularly in a narrow range from 70 to 200 micron [0037], a D10 of the thermoplastic polymer powder particles of the powder between 5 and 200 micron, more advantageously in a narrower range of 35 to 100 micron [0195], and a D90 between 50 to 500 micron, and more advantageously in a narrower range from 120 to 300 micron [0194]. Additionally, WO’736 suggests constraining relative particle sizes (e.g. D90/D10 between 1.5 to 50 or more narrowly from 2 to 10) [0196. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process with the specifically taught value of D50, D10, or D90 at the specifically-taught value, including at a value arbitrarily close and/ or suitably close to that value (e.g. within 30%, 20%, or 10% as recited) during the process in order to ensure a stable, consistent process and uniformity in coverage, size, and density of a coating, especially where the art teaches a single D50 value, through routine optimization absent evidence of criticality.
Although WO’736 fails to teach the recited tolerance constraints of maximum variation, WO’736 the variation represents routine optimization of the process of WO’736 to achieve a desired particle size distribution and/ or ratio of particle sizes within the constraints suggested by WO’736 absent evidence of criticality.
Regarding Claim 7, WO’736 teaches that said tank comprises a fluidized bed and said pre-impregnation step is carried out with simultaneous spreading of a roving or rovings between an inlet and an outlet of said fluidized bed [0118].
Regarding Claim 11, US’338 teaches recycling particles to a fluidized bed for coating (see rejection of Claim 1 above). The combination of WO’736 fails to teach specifically continuously reintroducing particles into the tank. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reintroduce particle into the tank to maintain mass balance, and it is prima facie obvious to make a batch process continuous.
Regarding Claim 13, WO’736 teaches said fluidized bed comprises at least one tension device, a roving or rovings being in contact with a portion or the whole of a surface of said at least one tension device (Fig. 3; [0090,0097]).
Regarding Claim 14, a spreading of said roving or of said rovings is carried out at least at a level of said at least one tension device [0133].
Regarding Claim 15, at least one tension device is a compression roller of convex, concave or cylindrical shape [0135].
Regarding Claim 16, said at least one compression roller is of cylindrical shape and a percentage of spreading of said roving or of said rovings between the inlet and the outlet of said fluidized bed is from 1% to 400% [0138].
Regarding Claim 17, the thermoplastic polymer is a non-reactive thermoplastic polymer [0063].
Regarding Claim 18, the process further comprises a step of heating the pre-impregnated fibrous material to melt the thermoplastic polymer and to finalize the impregnation of said fibrous material [0207].
Regarding Claim 19, said thermoplastic polymer is a reactive prepolymer capable of reacting on itself or with another prepolymer, depending on the chain ends borne by said prepolymer, or else with a chain extender [0063].
Regarding Claim 20, WO’736 suggests a step of heating the pre-impregnated fibrous material to melt and polymerize the thermoplastic prepolymer optionally with said extender and to finalize the impregnation of said fibrous material [0063-0066].
Regarding Claim 21, said at least one thermoplastic polymer is selected from: poly(aryl ether ketone)s (PAEKs), in particular poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK), poly(aryl ether ketone ketone)s (PAEKKs); aromatic polyetherimides (PEIs); polyaryl sulfones; polyaryl sulfides, polyamides (Pas), optionally modified by urea moieties; PEBAs, polyacrylates; polyolefins, polylactic acid (PLA), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and fluoropolymers; and blends thereof (Claim 21; [0047-0058,0228]).
Regarding Claim 22, said at least one thermoplastic polymer is a polymer having a glass transition temperature such that Tg >80°C, or a semicrystalline polymer having a melting temperature Tm > 150°C [0073].
Regarding Claim 23, said at least one thermoplastic polymer is selected from polyamides, aliphatic polyamides, cycloaliphatic polyamides and semiaromatic polyamides (polyphthalamides), PEKK, PEI and a blend of PEKK and PEI [0047-0058].
Regarding Claim 24, a content of fibers in said impregnated fibrous material is from 45% to 65% by volume [0085].
Regarding Claim 25, a degree of porosity in said impregnated fibrous material is, for example, 1-5% [0087,0267,0308].
Regarding Claim 26, said thermoplastic polymer further comprises carbon-based fillers [0045].
Regarding Claim 27, said fibrous material comprises continuous fibers selected from carbon fibers, glass fibers, silicon carbide fibers, basalt-based or basalt fibers, silica fibers, natural fibers [0080].
Regarding Claim 28, WO’736 teaches the process performed for manufacture of calibrated ribbons (“tapes”) suitable for manufacture of three-dimensional composite parts, by automated layup of said ribbons using a robot [0026].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstetter et al. (WO 2018/115736, citing US 2019/0084252 as an English translation) in view of Baucom et al. (US 5,057,338) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeshima et al. (JP 05271922).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of WO’736 in view of US’338 fails to teach a scraper. Takeshima et al. (JP’922) is analogous prior art in the field of powder coating by a fluidization tank (rotary drum), and further teaches a scraper in the tank for scraping particles sticking to the tank and returning them to the fluidized powder [0017,0035-0038]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of WO’736 in view of US’338 by including a scraper with a fluidization tank and bed, because JP’922 suggests a scraper to scrape powder stuck on a fluidization tank and to return the powder to the fluidized power.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of WO’736 in view of US’338 fails to teach using a scraper when the level h is less than a tolerance (hi-3%). JP’922 teaches a scraper to return powder to the fluidized powder, which clearly increases the volume of powder. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of WO’736 in view of US’338 by returning powder stuck to a fluidization tank to the fluidized powder when the height of powder is less than a desired height by automatically scraping the tank with a scraper suggested by JP’922 to return powder to the volume of fluidized powder and increasing the height back to a desired height.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 13-28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited art must first identify a claimed parameter as a result-effective variable to make an argument for routine optimization (Remarks, p. 10), the argument is not persuasive, because the issue is not whether it would have been obvious to modify a particle size, but whether it would have been obvious to maintain a taught particle size through at least some portion of the process. Note that the claims do not require that a process proceed for any particular duration of time during which a particle size must be maintained. Given that examples in US’252 reports of D50, D90, and D10 as single values (Examples 1, 2, 3,4), it would have been obvious to perform the process with those values (i.e. single values) of particle size as closely as one desires, including within 5%, 10%, 20%, or 30%. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to keep the D50,D90, and/ or D10 within a suitable tolerance (e.g. 20% or less, 10% or less, or 30% or less, respectively), in order to ensure a stable process and uniformity in coverage, size, and density of a coating, especially where the art teaches a single D50 value, through routine optimization absent evidence of criticality. Moreover, the presence of a known result-effective variable is one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. MPEP 2144.05. II.B. Also, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05.II.A. In the present case, where WO’736 teaches a process with a specific single value of each of D50, D90, and/or D10, it is not considered a patentable difference to suggest how closely to a specifically-taught value one would perform the process without evidence of criticality.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
