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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 16, and 19 have been amended and claim 20 is added. It is noted that claim 15 had been identified as original even though it had been modified by adding an additional phrase. Thus, claim 15 is being treated as an amended claim. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
The drawings were received on December 3, 2025. These drawings are acceptable. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
The amendment to the claims is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
The 35 USC 103 rejections over Hesch (6,159,879) are withdrawn due to the amendments. However, a new rejection based on Hesch is set forth below.
Definition of Terms
It is noted that the applicant argues that the term “bending length” is incorrectly defined by the applicant. The applicant argues that term “crimping” is "not the same" as "bending" from their perspective as "crimping suggests some sort of squeezing or fastening whereas bending would denote a deformation, particularly related to an applied load that creates the bending" (Response, page 9). However, the applicant has provided no specific references to clarify the distinction the applicant is trying to make. Further, the term was not defined in the original disclosure has not been shown to exclude crimping. Additionally, the term “crimping” is considered to require deforming to add angles or curves to a straight fiber as is shown in the Finnis reference cited below. Thus, the original definition of “bending length”, set forth in the previous Office Action is still being used by the Examiner. The term “bending length” is examined as meaning the distance between adjacent bends of a bast fiber (Specification, paragraph 39). Thus, it is equivalent to spacing of mechanical crimp or texturing in the fiber.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the base fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the term is examined as is it should be “bast fiber” instead.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8 – 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesch (6,159,879) in view of Finnis et al. (2022/0341063) and Umeoka (2005/0176328).
Hesch discloses a fibrous material including a blend of shives of bast fibers, bast fibers and a binder (abstract). The fibers are between 2mm and 100mm long (abstract). The bast fibers have crimp (column 2, lines 45 – 47). Further, the fibers are formed into a loose layer of fibers and then combed, swirled and homogenized (column 3, lines 17 – 21). The loose fibers are mechanically felted to form a cohesive layer (column 4, lines 25 – 30). Further a matrix material is added to bast fibers to formed a reinforced material (column 2, lines 50 – 57).
While Hesch discloses using bast fibers, Hesch fails to teach the diameters of bast fibers. Umeoka et al. is drawn to composites made from bast fibers, such as kenaf fibers. Umeoka et al. discloses that the kenaf fibers have an average diameter of between 10 and 300 microns (claim 1), and preferably between 70 and 150 microns (claims 6 and 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose from known diameters of bast fibers for the composite of Hesch.
Additionally, while Hesch discloses that the fibers are crimped, Hesch fails to teach the distance between the crimps within the fibers. Finnis et al. is drawn to bast fibers (abstract). Finnis et al. discloses that bast fibers are initially straight and exhibit poor fiber-to-fiber cohesions due to lack of crimp (paragraph 13). Crimp is added to improve processing of bast fibers (paragraph 20). Further, the fibers includes 1 to 10 crimps per centimeter (paragraph 14). The crimps can be added in triangular shape (paragraph 16 and Figure 3). Thus, the crimp bast fibers has bends approximately equidistance apart after processing. Also, the triangular shape of the crimps are considered to be equivalent to the bends taught by the applicant. Finally, the average length between crimp points would be about 1cm to 1mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add crimp to straight bast fibers to improve the processing properties of the bast fibers as disclosed by Finnis et al. Thus, claim 1 is rejected. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, claim 10 is also rejected.
As shown in Figure 2, the fibers and shives can be tangled together in a random pattern, forming an isotropic configuration (column 5, lines 14 – 20). Thus, claim 2 is rejected. Further, Hesch teaches that the if the shives are cleaned of fibers the fibers can lie essentially parallel (column 5, lines 10 – 12). Thus, claim 3 is rejected.
Bast plants include hemp, jute, flax, and linen (column 1, lines 25 – 30). Thus, claim 8 is rejected.
Further, the matrix material can be a synthetic or biogenous plastic which would form as opaque matrix that would could not be seen through. Thus, claim 9 is rejected.
Claim 20 recites limitations drawn to how the bast fibers are broken up and formed into crimped fibers. These limitations are drawn to the method limitations of producing the bast fibers. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, if the prior art features bast fibers with the claimed features, then the prior art fibers are not considered to be patentably distinct. Further, Finnis et al. discloses that bast fibers can be mechanically or chemically treated to break up the fibers from the bark material and remove pectin from the fibers surface (paragraphs 85 - 89). Finnis et al. discloses that the bast fibers are similar and can be used interchangeably in the final product. Thus, claim 20 is rejected with claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesch, Umeoka et al. and Finnis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Eddleston et al. (GB 2084075A).
The features of Hesch have been set forth above. Hesch teaches using crimped bast fibers in nonwoven reinforcing materials, However, Hesch fails to teach making yarns or woven fabrics from the bast fibers. Eddleston et al. is drawn to a fiber reinforced matrix comprising woven sheets of bast fibers impregnated with a resin (abstract). Eddleston et al. discloses that the reinforced fabric includes layers of woven fabric stacked together. The woven fabric would comprise spun yarns in woven together and having the warp yarns aligned with each other and the weft yarns aligned with each other. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make woven fabric reinforcing layers, as taught by Eddleston et al., from the crimped bast fibers of Hesch since Eddleston et al. discloses that that bast fibers can be used to make yarns and woven fabric layers in a fabric reinforced matrix. Thus, claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 18, and 19 are rejected.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesch, Umeoka et al., Finnis et al., and Eddleston et al. as applied to claim 4, 11, or 16 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (5,783,278).
The features of Hesch and Eddleston et al. have been set forth above. While Hesch and Eddleston et al. discloses using bast fibers in woven layers of reinforcing fabric, and even that the layers can be stacked together to form a multilayer structure, the prior art fails to teach using stitching to join the layers together. Nishimura et al. is drawn to reinforcing woven fabrics as the reinforcing layer in reinforcing composite materials. Nishimura et al. discloses that the reinforced product can include multiple reinforcing layers, 41-44, that are stitched together by a stitch yarn 45 (column 26, lines 25 – 50). The stitch yarn traverse all the layers in the stack (column 26, lines 37 – 41). The stitched product has high strength properties (column 26, lines 45 – 50). Thus, it would be obvious to stitch together the multiple woven layers in the woven bast fiber composite as disclosed by Hesch and Eddleston et al. to improve the strength properties of the stacked layer. Further, the outer layer of the stacked composite would be equivalent to the applicant’s backing layer, i.e., an additional layer stitched to the woven cloth and encapsulated within the matrix. Thus, claims 6, 13, and 17 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the definition of the term bending relative to crimp, as disclosed by Finnis et al. crimping of textile fibers imparts bends into the length of the fibers as taught by Finnis et al. Thus, the crimp features of Hesch and Finnis et al. are considered to be equivalent to the bends disclosed by the applicant. Additionally, the Applicant argues that a crimp shape cannot be applied to fibers shorter than 2mm and the bending length would not be smaller than 2mm. However, as is shown by Finnis et al. crimp is added to along the entire length of the fiber to improve the properties of the fibers. Thus, crimp would be added equally to short or long fibers. Since Hesch discloses that crimped fibers the desired structure, than even the 2mm long fibers would include regular intervals of crimp. Otherwise, the shorter fibers would not have crimp and would not be useful in the invention of Hesch. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are contrary to the invention taught by the prior art and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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 at (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.
jlj
April 1, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights