DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/12/2025:
claims 1, 4-5, 7-11 and 13-20 are currently pending
claim 1 is amended
new prior art ground of rejection applying Tanaka, Kaufmann, Pyzik, Pyzik’0367 are presented herein
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
It is noted that claims 2 and 3 has been cancelled. Since amended claim 1 now incorporates the features previously recited in claims 2 and 3, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will treat claims 18-19 as being dependent on claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 13-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0324643 A1), hereinafter referred to as TANAKA, in view of Kaufmann et al. (US 8,496,861 B2), hereinafter referred to as KAUFMANN.
Regarding claim 1, TANAKA teaches a reinforcement member used to reinforce concrete (Abstract: a fiber reinforced cement-based material), comprising:
synthetic fibers with a ratio of a length to an equivalent diameter being in range of 30 to 300 (paragraph [0056]: a ratio (aspect ratio) AR(=Li/d) of the length Li of the bumpy fiber to the mean cross-sectional diameter d is 10 to 500); TANAKA teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I),
wherein embossments extending from outer surfaces of the synthetic fibers to outside form protrusions on the outer surfaces of the synthetic fibers (paragraph [0053]: fiber 1 has multiple recessed portions 11, disposed in the fiber surface in a staggered arrangement with a gap therebetween, and a raised portion is between the recessed portions 11; this asperity pattern can be formed by, for example, embossing the fiber surface), and have depth in range of 0.1 mm to 0.35 mm (Table 2, examples f-1 and f-2: the diameter calculated from circumference is 0.76 mm and 1.21 mm; TANAKA discloses that the recessed portions 11 among the asperities are each formed such that a ratio h/H of its depth h to the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.05 to 0.8 (paragraph [0055]) and that the cross-sectional shape of the fibers may be any shape such as a circular shape (paragraph [0051])). Thus, based on teachings of TANAKA one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the depth of the recessed portions on the surface of the fibers of TANAKA would overlap with the claimed range,
the reinforcement member is in a range of 0.9 kg to 27.3 kg in 1 m3 of concrete (paragraph [0052]: the total amount of the fibers to be mixed can be 1.0 to 5.5 %). According to MPEP § 2111, the proper claim interpretation includes giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Therefore, for the purpose of the claim interpretation, the Examiner treats the limitation “range of 0.9 kg to 27.3 kg in 1 m3 of concrete” according to the Specification, 1st paragraph on page 26, disclosing fiber usage in concrete in a ratio of 0.1 to 3%. TANAKA teaches a range of 1 to 5.5%, which overlaps with the claimed range,
the synthetic fibers are manufactured from polypropylene (paragraph [0050]: organic fibers (e.g., polypropylene (PP) fibers),
wherein the embossments are in the form of quadrangle or elliptical form (see TANAKA at Fig. 5, and Annotated Fig. 5),
PNG
media_image1.png
338
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the embossments are positioned on the outer surfaces of the synthetic fibers with intervals and the distance between two adjacent embossments is from 0.20 mm to 0.80 mm.
However, KAUFMANN teaches plastic fibers for the application in cement-bonded building materials, in particular in concrete (see KAUFMANN at Col. 3, lines 35-36). KAUFMANN also teaches a continuously or interruptedly structured or grooved surface being embossed onto the continuously stretched bi-component fiber, wherein the depth of this structuring is more than 10% of this average fiber diameter, and the maximal distances of their structure tips within attached structures in the axial direction lie between 0.5 mm and 3 mm (see KAUFMANN at Col. 3, lines 54-59). Additionally, KAUFMANN teaches that the structuring has been produced by an embossing, and this mechanical structuring has the aim of macroscopically profiling the surface, in order by way of this, to increase the static friction between this bi-component fiber and the cement-like building material to which it is admixed (see KAUFMANN at Col. 8, lines 13-17).
TANAKA and KAUFMANN both disclose the concrete reinforcing material comprising synthetic fibers. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of TANAKA by structuring the fiber by an embossing, such that the maximal distances of their structure tips within attached structures in the axial direction lie between 0.5 mm and 3 mm, as disclosed by KAUFMANN, since KAUFMANN explicitly teaches that this mechanical structuring has the aim of macroscopically profiling the surface, in order to increase the static friction between this bi-component fiber and the cement-like building material to which it is admixed (see KAUFMANN at Col. 8, lines 13-17).
TANAKA discloses the range which overlaps with the claimed range (see TANAKA at paragraphs [0055]: the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.05 to 0.8; the largest cross-sectional diameter B of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.3 to 10.0; and [0056]: a mean cross-sectional diameter d of the bumpy fiber 1 is expressed as d=(H+B)/2 as the mean of the smallest cross-sectional diameter H and the largest cross-sectional diameter B; a length Li of each individual bumpy fiber 1 is 1 mm or longer; furthermore, a ratio (aspect ratio) AR (=Li/d) of the length Li of the bumpy fiber 1 to the mean cross-sectional diameter d is 10 to 500), but TANAKA teaches a very broad range. However, KAUFMANN teaches that if fibers are cast in section lengths of approx. 10 to 80 mm in a cement-like building material, in particular in concrete, then-by way of the improved fiber matrix bonding its tensile strength is increased and the post failure behavior is decisively improved (see KAUFMANN at Col. 8, lines 31-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of TANAKA by adjusting the length to about 10-80 mm as disclosed by KAUFMANN in order to improve fiber matrix bonding and increase concrete’s tensile strength.
Regarding claim 4, TANAKA in view of KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a short edge of the embossments is in range of 0.10 mm to 0.40 mm and a long edge is in range of 0.20 mm and 0.90 mm (claim 4) and in range of 0.10 mm to 0.35 mm and a long edge is in range of 0.40 mm and 0.70 mm (claim 5).
However, TANAKA teaches relationship between fiber and embossment dimensions (paragraphs [0055-56]). Additionally, TANAKA teaches that for the depth h of each recessed portion 11 of the bumpy fiber 1, the ratio h/H thereof to the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is set as a parameter, by taking into account the bonding interaction between the aggregate particles 2 in the cement matrix and the bumpy fiber 1; reducing the ratio h/H reduces the depth h of the recessed portion 11 and thereby imparts a decreasing tendency to the mechanical bond (paragraph [0068]). TANAKA also teaches that, on the other hand, increasing the ratio h/H increases the mechanical bond but increases the size of the loss of the bumpy fiber 1 in its cross sections; this reduces the tensile strength of the bumpy fiber 1 itself and the rigidity of the fiber; thus, it is possible that the risk of the bumpy fiber 1 breaking before slip shear fracture of the cement matrix may be increased, and that the reduced tensile rigidity of the fiber may increase the width of cracks (paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have adjusted the dimensions of the embossments to be within the claimed range to obtain fibers with desired properties.
Regarding claim 5, TANAKA in view of KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a short edge of the embossments is in range of 0.10 mm to 0.40 mm and a long edge is in range of 0.20 mm and 0.90 mm (claim 4) and in range of 0.10 mm to 0.35 mm and a long edge is in range of 0.40 mm and 0.70 mm (claim 5).
However, TANAKA teaches relationship between fiber and embossment dimensions (paragraphs [0055-56]). Additionally, TANAKA teaches that for the depth h of each recessed portion 11 of the bumpy fiber 1, the ratio h/H thereof to the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is set as a parameter, by taking into account the bonding interaction between the aggregate particles 2 in the cement matrix and the bumpy fiber 1; reducing the ratio h/H reduces the depth h of the recessed portion 11 and thereby imparts a decreasing tendency to the mechanical bond (paragraph [0068]). TANAKA also teaches that, on the other hand, increasing the ratio h/H increases the mechanical bond but increases the size of the loss of the bumpy fiber 1 in its cross sections; this reduces the tensile strength of the bumpy fiber 1 itself and the rigidity of the fiber; thus, it is possible that the risk of the bumpy fiber 1 breaking before slip shear fracture of the cement matrix may be increased, and that the reduced tensile rigidity of the fiber may increase the width of cracks (paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have adjusted the dimensions of the embossments to be within the claimed range to obtain fibers with desired properties.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, wherein the outer surfaces of the synthetic fibers with a diameter of equal to or greater than 0.3 mm and an aspect ratio of 30-300 (see rejection of claim 1 above and TANAKA at paragraphs [0055]: the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.05 to 0.8; the largest cross-sectional diameter B of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.3 to 10.0; and [0056]: a mean cross-sectional diameter d of the bumpy fiber 1 is expressed as d=(H+B)/2 as the mean of the smallest cross-sectional diameter H and the largest cross-sectional diameter B; a length Li of each individual bumpy fiber 1 is 1 mm or longer; furthermore, a ratio (aspect ratio) AR (=Li/d) of the length Li of the bumpy fiber 1 to the mean cross-sectional diameter d is 10 to 500), but TANAKA fails to explicitly teach wherein the reinforcement members are wrapped with a water-soluble material and in form of cylindrical bundles (claim 7), wherein a diameter of the cylindrical bundles is in range of 20 mm to 80 mm (claim 8).
However, KAUFMANN discloses that the fibers must be incorporated into the concrete is a suitable form, in order there to display their effect; even the best fibers are of no use if no homogenous distribution may be achieved in the concrete; if the fibers incorporated into the concrete in a somewhat loose manner, such as blown in or scattered in heaps, then nests of fibers are often formed, into which the concrete does not completely penetrate (see KAUFMANN at Col. 10, lines 27-33). KAUFMANN teaches that a surprisingly effective solution was found in wrapping a few thousand fibers as a bundle, with a water-soluble plastic film, and then cutting off sections or bundles; the bundle measures approx. 50 mm in length and diameter, weighs 55 grams and contains 6000 fibers and is enclosed by a transparent, water-soluble and inert plastic film (see Fig. 9 depicting cylindrical bundle, and KAUFMANN at Col. 10, lines 36-42). Additionally, KAUFMANN teaches that the bundles are held together in a reliable manner by this plastic film; and only after incorporating into the concrete does the film dissolve, and the fibers distribute in the concrete; the parallel position of the fibers in the bundles permits a homogeneous distribution. Furthermore, in contrast to a packaging in a small bag, hardly any air is enclosed in these bundles, by which means they do not float up on incorporation into the concrete, and may thus be better mixed; the packaging of the plastic fibers also has significant commercial advantages: they are significantly more compact that the binding of loose fibers, such compact shape entails savings on transport (see KAUFMANN at Col. 10, lines 43-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the fibers of TANAKA by wrapping them with a water soluble film in form of cylindrical bundles with a diameter of 50 mm as disclosed by KAUFMANN since KAUFMANN explicitly teaches that the parallel position of the fibers in the bundles permits a homogeneous distribution and that the packaging of the plastic fibers also has significant commercial advantages (see KAUFMANN at Col. 10, lines 43-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of TANAKA by wrapping them with a water-soluble film in form of cylindrical bundles with a diameter of 50 mm as disclosed by KAUFMANN in order to enable homogeneous distribution of fibers upon when mixed with concrete and to take advantage of commercial advantages such as savings on transport.
Regarding claim 9, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, wherein polyethylene is added into the polypropylene used as a raw material (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]: for the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g. polypropylene (PP) fibers, polyvinyl alcoholic (PVA) fibers, polyethylene fibers, … further, the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds).
Furthermore, KAUFMANN discloses that the fiber consists of polyolefin materials, which is to say of polypropylene, polyethylene or mixture thereof and other thermoplastic raw material (see KAUFMANN at Col. 7, lines 62-65).
While TANAKA is silent with respect to the polypropylene and polyethylene being used as a raw material, TANAKA’s and KAUFMANN’s disclosures describe fibers for concrete reinforcement. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene as a raw material as disclosed by KAUFMANN based on teachings of TANAKA describing that the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 13, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, wherein the equivalent diameter of the synthetic fibers comprised by the reinforcement member is in range of 1.08 mm to 0.36 mm (TANAKA at paragraphs [0055]: the smallest cross-sectional diameter H of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.05 to 0.8; the largest cross-sectional diameter B of the bumpy fiber 1 is 0.3 to 10.0; and [0056]: a mean cross-sectional diameter d of the bumpy fiber 1 is expressed as d=(H+B)/2). Thus, TANAKA teaches a diameter range with overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1, wherein the equivalent diameter of the synthetic fibers comprised by the reinforcement member is in range of 0.76 mm to 0.68 mm (see TANAKA at paragraph [0056]: a ratio (aspect ratio) AR(=Li/d) of the length Li of the bumpy fiber to the mean cross-sectional diameter d is 10 to 500). TANAKA teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claims 18-20, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claims 1 and 4, wherein the embossments are positioned on the outer surfaces of the synthetic fibers with intervals and the distance between two adjacent embossments is from 0.20 mm to 0.80 mm (see KAUFMANN at Col. 3, lines 54-59: the maximal distances of their structure tips within attached structures in the axial direction lie between 0.5 mm and 3 mm). KAUFMANN teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA in view of KAUFMANN as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pyzik et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0081816 A1), hereinafter referred to as PYZIK.
Regarding claim 10, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1. While TANAKA discloses that for the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g. polypropylene (PP) fibers, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers; further, the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]), but TANAKA is silent with respect to the polyethylene terephthalate being added into the polypropylene and used as a raw material.
However, PYZIK teaches fiber-reinforced composites are used as reinforcements for concrete (see PYZIK at Abstract). PYZIK discloses that as it is the fibers that mainly provide the desired reinforcing properties, the fiber content of the small cross-section composite is preferably as high as can conveniently be made; the upper limit on fiber content is limited only by the ability of the thermoplastic resin to wet out the fibers and adhere them together (see PYZIK at paragraph [0022]). PYZIK also teaches that the thermoplastic resin can be polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, ethylene vinyl acetate, ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, ethylene vinyl alcohol, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate, acrylonitrile-styrene-acrylic, ethylene-styrene interpolymer, ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene), polyethylene, polypropylene, or blends thereof (see PYZIK at paragraph [0023]). PYZIK and TANAKA both disclose the concrete reinforcing material comprising synthetic fibers. Additionally, TANAKA discloses that that for the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g. polypropylene (PP) fibers, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers; further, the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]).
According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate as a raw material as disclosed by PYZIK based on teachings of TANAKA describing that the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAKA in view of KAUFMANN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pyzik et al (US 6780367 B2), hereinafter referred to as PYZIK’0367.
Regarding claim 11, TANAKA as modified by KAUFMANN teaches the reinforcement member according to claim 1. While TANAKA discloses that for the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g. polypropylene (PP) fibers, nylon fibers; further, the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]), but TANAKA is silent with respect to polyamide 6.6 being added into the polypropylene and used as a raw material.
However, PYZIK’0367 teaches a concrete article comprised of concrete having therein a reinforcing fiber (see PYZIK’0367 at Abstract). PYZIK’0367 discloses a new polymeric fiber that has improved bonding with concrete that results in concrete that has improved properties, lower cost or both, compared to other reinforced concrete (see PYZIK’0367 at Col. 2, lines 21-24). PYZIK’0367 teaches that the core polymer may be polyolefins, thermoplastic hydroxy-functionalized polyether or polyester, polyesters, polyamides, polyethers, polysaccharides, modified polysaccharides or naturally-occurring fibers or particulate fillers; thermoplastic polyurethanes, thermoplastic elastomers and glycol-modified polyester (PETG); other polymers of the polyester or polyamide-type can also be employed for preparing the fiber (see PYZIK’0367 at Col. 4, lines 38-47). Additionally, PYZIK’0367 discloses that the polyamides may include the various grades of nylon, such as nylon 6, nylon 6,6 and nylon 12 (see PYZIK’0367 at Col. 4, lines 64-65). PYZIK’0367 and TANAKA both disclose the concrete reinforcing material comprising synthetic fibers. Additionally, TANAKA discloses that for the fibers mixed in the ultra-high-strength fiber reinforced concrete, it is possible to use: organic fibers (e.g. polypropylene (PP) fibers, nylon fibers; further, the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a mixture of polypropylene polyamide 6.6 as a raw material as disclosed by PYZIK’0367 based on teachings of TANAKA describing that the fibers used may not be of only one kind but of a combination of multiple kinds (see TANAKA at paragraph [0050]) (see MPEP § 2144.06(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are 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: prior art fails to teach cumulative limitations of claims 15-17 such as:
tensile strength of the synthetic fibers comprised by the reinforcement member being in range of 300 to 800 MPa (claim 15);
an elastic modulus of the synthetic fibers comprised by the reinforcement member is in range of 5 to 15 GPa (claim 16);
a dtex value of the synthetic fibers comprised by the reinforcement member is in range of 650 to 8000 (claim 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither TANAKA nor KAUFMANN disclose elliptical or quadrangular embossments extending outward from the outer surfaces of synthetic fibers to form protrusions (see Remarks received on 11/12/2025 spanning paragraphs on page 6).
However, examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, TANAKA discloses fibers comprising the embossments in the form of quadrangle (see TANAKA at Fig. 5). Moreover, Fig. 5 demonstrates the embossments that extent outward from the outer surface of synthetic fibers.
In response to Applicant’s argument that TANAKA does not disclose the distance between two adjacent embossments being from 0.20 mm to 0.80 mm, and fails to teach the claimed length of the synthetic fibers (see Remarks received on 11/12/2025 at last paragraph on page 6), it is noted that new grounds of rejection rely on combination of TANAKA and KAUFMANN.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., homogeneous distribution in the cement, preventing agglomerate formation, adherence to the cement matrix, increased tensile strength, (see Remarks received on 11/12/2025 at paragraphs 1-2 on page 7) is not recited in the rejected claim.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention defines a specific distance between two adjacent embossments, which is significantly narrower than the range disclosed in KAUFMANN, and that KAUFMANN fails to teach the optimized dimensional configuration defined in the present claims and the associated technical effects on fiber distribution and tensile performance.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, KAUFMANN discloses length and a distance between two adjacent embossments in ranges which overlap with the claimed ranges. According to MPEP §2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim”. Furthermore, KAUFMANN explicitly teaches the beneficial effect associated with the disclosed ranges: KAUFMANN discloses that the maximal distances of their structure tips within attached structures in the axial direction lie between 0.5 mm and 3 mm (see KAUFMANN at Col. 3, lines 54-59), and that the structuring has been produced by an embossing, and this mechanical structuring has the aim of macroscopically profiling the surface, in order by way of this, to increase the static friction between this bi-component fiber and the cement-like building material to which it is admixed (see KAUFMANN at Col. 8, lines 13-17). Additionally, KAUFMANN discloses that if fibers are cast in section lengths of approx. 10 to 80 mm in a cement-like building material, in particular in concrete, then-by way of the improved fiber matrix bonding its tensile strength is increased and the post failure behavior is decisively improved (see KAUFMANN at Col. 8, lines 31-35).
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over TANAKA in view of KAUFMANN is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731