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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 21 and 34-35, the cancellation of claims 32-33 and 39-40, and the addition of claim 41. Claims 21-31, 34-38, and 41 are pending.
Specification
The applicant has amended the specification to be 150 words or less. As a result, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 41 includes a description of a fastening nut and its presence in a CPU attachment apparatus. However, this constitutes an intended use and does not afford additional patentable weight as any fastening nut would be capable of being used in this capacity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The applicant has amended claim 35 to depend upon claim 34. As a result, the 112 rejection of claim 35 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21-31, 34-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus (WO 2015022404) in view of Larson (US 20190304869, US Patent Application #1 from IDS dated 2/17/2023).
Regarding Claims 21-25, 34-38, and 41,
Claus teaches a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition (Paragraph 1) in which the thermoplastic component can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (Paragraph 13) that is present in preferably 35-70% by weight of the composition (Paragraph 12). Claus also teaches that composition should include two fibrous components B1 and B2 (Paragraph 57) that are preferably contained in amounts of 29 to 38% by weight (Paragraph 57) and in a ratio that is preferably between 2:3 and 3:2 (Paragraph 62), but is most preferred to be 1:1 (Paragraph 62). Claus also teaches that one of the two fibrous components should be short fibers while the other is comprised of long fibers (Paragraph 59) and that carbon fibers and glass fibers are the preferred fibrous components (Paragraph 62). The ranges above are contained within the ranges of the instant claims. In regard to the requirement that the carbon fiber and glass fiber components comprise 15% by weight each, Claus teaches that the preferred ratio is 1:1 between the fibrous components and that the preferred combined weight percentage for these components is 29 to 38%, which would include the requirement of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the amount of fibrous filler in order to tailor the strength and toughness of the composite to the desired amount for the intended purpose. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected any value within the range disclosed by Claus.
Claus teaches that the composition is useful in moldings with mechanical function for electrical and mechanical engineering usage (Paragraph 115), but does not teach that the composition is to be used as a fastening nut to secure a CPU. However, Larson teaches a nut comprised of a thermoplastic and fibrous filler (Abstract) and further teaches that nut should be made from PEEK (Paragraph 119) and that both glass (Paragraph 119) and carbon fibers (Paragraph 121) may be used. Larson additionally teaches that this nut is used to secure a CPU (Abstract). As the glass and carbon fibers are taught for use for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to have used them in combination for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I. Additionally, Claus states that the use of short and long fibrous materials improves seam strength in molded articles (Paragraph 5), which are commonly formed in injection molded articles (Paragraph 1), providing the ordinarily skilled artisan motivation to utilize this knowledge in other injection molded articles. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the fiber combination of Claus with the composition of Larson to obtain the predictable result of a strengthened PEEK-based composite material with a reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, Claus teaches that the composition may contain up to 5% by weight additives (Paragraph 77) where additives include stabilizers and oxidation retarders (Paragraph 78) which reads upon antioxidant, meeting the requirements of the instant claims. Additionally, Claus teaches the use of fatty acid esters and amides as additives (Paragraph 83), which the applicant lists as dispersants in the specification (Paragraph 48), thus also meeting this requirement of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claus teaches that the thermoplastic is present in the composition preferably in amounts ranging from 35 to 70 weight percent, which includes the value of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the amount of filler and resin to achieve the desired material properties such as strength and toughness without compromising the moldability of the composite. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected any value within the range disclosed by Claus.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claus teaches that one of the fibrous components preferably has a length of 3 to 4 mm while the other is preferably 4.5 to 13 mm (Paragraph 58) with both carbon and glass fibers preferred (Paragraph 62) and which can be used in combination (Paragraph 62). The above ranges are contained within the ranges of the instant claim. Because Claus teaches the use of both carbon fibers and glass fibers, it would have been obvious to have used either material in either length range.
Regarding Claim 28,
Claus teaches that the preferred diameter for the glass fibers is 6 to 20 micrometers (Paragraph 64), which is contained within the range of the instant claim. While Claus does not state a range for carbon fibers, it would logically follow that diameters that were acceptable for the glass fibers would also be acceptable for carbon fibers, as the materials are serving the same purpose. Therefore, the range would overlap with the range of the instant claim for the carbon fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the fiber diameter in order to increase the loading of fibrous component and thereby increase the tensile strength. As such, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges because selection of the overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claims 29 and 30,
Claus in view of Larson teaches a composite nut of the instant claims as described in regard to claim 21 above. Larson additionally teaches the use of composite materials for retaining nuts (Paragraph 119) and are used in place of metal nuts for microprocessors (CPUs) in order to avoid metal slivers that can cause microprocessor failure (Paragraph 1). Larson also teaches that assemblies containing the composite nut are used to replace conventional nuts to generate load on the microprocessor (Paragraph 109) and further states that the loading mechanism may also have a load spring which is used to soften the load on the microprocessor (Paragraph 179). As such, Larson teaches the use of the composite nut for use in attaching a CPU to a motherboard in a mechanism that contains a spring between the CPU and motherboard.
Regarding Claim 31,
Claus teaches a composition with components and amounts as disclosed in the instant application. As such, it would logically follow that the compositions would have the same material properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
On page 6, the applicant states that Claus does not teach nor suggest the use of dispersants or antioxidants relative to claim 21 and restates this argument relative to claim 34 on page 7. The examiner disagrees. As noted in the rejection, Claus specifically teaches the use of oxidation retarders in paragraph 78, which as noted would read upon an antioxidant as antioxidants serve to themselves be oxidized and thus reduce the amount of oxidation to the composition in which they are contained. With regard to dispersants, Claus does teach the use of the class of compounds comprising fatty acid esters and amides (Paragraph 83), which are noted to serve the purpose of dispersant by the applicant’s specification (Paragraph 48). While Claus teaches that these compounds are used as lubricants, it does not preclude the use of these compounds for other uses. Additionally, while Claus teaches preferred additives, Claus does not teach away from the use of other additives and merely notes that they should comprise up to 5% by weight of the composition. With regard the applicant’s argument that Claus prefers UV and heat stabilizers, while the examiner notes that Claus does indeed prefer these additives, that does not diminish the teaching of other additives, including oxidation retarding compounds, which Claus enumerates in Paragraph 80. The teachings of a reference must be taken in their totality and because Claus teaches the use of such compounds, simply preferring to use other additives does not negate their teaching. In summation, the applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and, as a result, the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM J BERRO whose telephone number is (703)756-1283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765