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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one coated fiber of the core region comprises a concentration of the continuous filaments of about 20 volume percent or more”. Applicant has not pointed to nor has the Office found support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed. Applicant has pointed to support for such an amendment in regard to the volume percent of the continuous filaments in paragraph 0152 of PCT/US2020/060612. While the paragraph Applicant has pointed to has support for the entire composite having 20 volume percent of continuous filaments, the specification as originally filed does not have support to recite 20 volume percent of continuous filaments in the core. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 87 recites “filler in the form of a plurality of filaments”. Applicant has not pointed to nor has Examiner found support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed. While the specification as originally filed appears to have support to claim filaments and to claim filler. No where is the filler said to be filaments. The filler is stated to be a fiber, but is not stated to be a filament. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or amend or cancel the claim.
Claim 95 recites “the plurality of filaments are in the form of filler”. Applicant has not pointed to nor has Examiner found support for such an amendment in the specification as originally filed. While the specification as originally filed appears to have support to claim filaments and to claim filler. No where is the filaments said to be filler. The filler is stated to be a fiber, but is not stated to be a filament. Applicant is advised to point to support for such an amendment or amend or cancel the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 concerning 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Art not Cited, but Relevant
PG Pub. 2019/0175734 teaches a coated fiber and implant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights