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 examiner notes that the response after the most recent Ex Parte Quayle action has been entered. Amendment submitted November 7, 2025 as noted is entered. Examiner also acknowledges that claims 12 – 15 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims include the phrase “surface roughness Ra of 1 to 20 pm.” It would appear that pm is a typo and should be corrected to micron (µm). Examiner notes that µm would be consistent with what is disclosed in both the specification and the units indicated therein and the originally-filed claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaillard, et al. (US 20160347009 A1) in view of Zentner, et al. (US 4,454,294).
With respect to claim 1, Gaillard, et al. teach a method for producing a unidirectional tape (see abstract) with a surface polymer, layer, the method comprising the steps of:
Providing an impregnation slurry comprising particles of a polymer, water and optionally fillers (paragraph 0097; immersion tank 20 contains an aqueous dispersion of a polymer (i.e, powder [particles])) and providing a pressing tool having a surface profile structure with a surface roughness (forming step, paragraph 0101; calender roll [paragraph 0113] includes a series of protrusions and recesses and thereby inherently has a surface roughness)
Impregnating a unidirectional fiber layer comprising unidirectional fibers with the impregnation slurry to obtain an impregnated unidirectional fiber layer comprising the particles of the polymer (paragraph 0096 and 0097)
Pressing at a surface of the impregnated unidirectional fiber layer with the surface profile structure to move at least some of the particles of the polymer within the impregnated unidirectional fiber layer onto the surface to form a surface polymer layer on the unidirectional fiber layer (paragraph 0101 – 0104, reference teaches that the calendaring allows the impregnation polymer to be heated so that it penetrates into and adheres to coat the fiber ribbons)
Obtaining a unidirectional tape with a surface polymer layer (paragraph 0114).
Gaillard, et al. however, does not teach the surface roughness (Ra) of the pressing surface such that it ranges from 1 – 20 µm. As noted by the examiner, a surface roughness is inherently present as the calender rolls of Gaillard, et al. have a pattern of protrusions and recesses (figure 2).
Zentner, et al. teaches the formation of a polymer film, which is embossed and thus, roughened via calender rolls (column 5, lines 15 – 20). For the films produced, the roughness of the rolls are: Ra = 3 µm and Rz = 20 µm (column 6, lines 60 – 65). The Ra value is within the range as claimed. The use of calender rolls to emboss a film is desired if one wants a film which is ‘delustered’ or matte and can be used in packaging applications.
Both Gaillard, et al. and Zentner, et al. teach polymeric films which can be used in a variety of industries and both appreciate the use of calender rolls with a pattern of protrusion and recesses between which a film is passed therebetween to produce a roughened film. Thus, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a calender roll with a roughness between 1 – 20 µm for the purpose of producing a film with a desired surface roughness.
With respect to claim 2, Gaillard, et al. teach the polymer is thermoplastic (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claim 3, Gaillard, et al. teach the thermoplastic polymer comprises or consists of PAEK-based polymeric material, PPS, PEI PESLI, PES or PSU (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claim 4, Gaillard, et al. teach that the PAEK-based polymeric material is selected from PEEK or PEKK (paragraph 0036).
With respect to claim 5, Gaillard, et al. teach that the unidirectional fibers are carbon fibers or glass fibers or quartz fibers (paragraph 0086).
With respect to claim 6, the examiner notes that Gaillard, et al. in view of Zentner, et al. render obvious the surface roughness as claimed. Zentner, et al. teaches the formation of a polymer film, which is embossed and thus, roughened via calender rolls (column 5, lines 15 – 20). For the films produced, the roughness of the rolls are: Ra = 3 µm and Rz = 20 µm (column 6, lines 60 – 65). The produced films in Zentner, et al. have a Ra of 2.5 µm (column 7, lines 5 – 10) and thus is/are within the range as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Gaillard, et al. teach the further step of drying the unidirectional fiber layer between the impregnating step and the pressing step (paragraph 0099).
With respect to claim 8, Gaillard, et al. in view of Zentner, et al. render obvious the additional step of cooling the unidirectional fiber layer before or while performing the pressing step (C). The examiner notes that post impregnation, the fiber roving is dried and then sent directly to the calendering rolls. Any drop in temperature of the fiber would be expected as it leaves the aqueous bath and is dried. This drop would amount to ‘cooling’ as claimed. Any decrease in the temperature of the fiber roving is then compensated for with the rapid heating elements (41, 42 and 43 – figure 1) which are designed to heat each of the calender rolls in order to ensure the polymer is enfused in and embedded within the fiber rovings.
With respect to claim 9, while Gaillard, et al. and Zentner, et al. do not specifically recite the temperature range as claimed, the range is expected because of the polymers used in Gaillard, et al. Gaillard, et al. teach the same species of thermoplastic polymers and thus, the crystallization temperature is equivalent if not the same. In addition, the temperature during the pressing step is adjusted in order to ensure that the polymer is heated sufficiently for rapid transmission of thermal energy and thus, perfecting fiber impregnation (paragraph 0109). Therefore, the examiner contends that the temperature range is obvious given the teachings in Gaillard, et al. combined with Zentner, et al.
With respect to claim 10, Gaillard, et al. teach the surface profile structure comprises protrusions for pressing the impregnated unidirectional fiber layer and recesses for receiving the polymer pressed out of the impregnated unidirectional fiber layer (figure 2; paragraph 0113).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaillard, et al. in view of Zentner, et al. as applied to claims 1 – 10 above, and further in view of Glover, et al. (US 2002/0102370 A1) or Torres Martinez (US 2019/0232529 A1).
Gaillard, et al. in view of Zentner, et al. teach the features as noted above, but are both silent with respect to the additional step of electrostatically depositing particles onto the unidirectional fiber.
Glover, et al. teach the formation of decorative strips. The strips or strip-like patterns may be applied to a flat surface, depending on the end use; strips may be in the form of paints, inks, frits or particles which may be electrostatically deposited (paragraph 0008).
Similarly, Torres Martinez teaches the manufacture of resin tape with embedded fibers. The resin layers may be deposited in steps to thereby produce a surface coating or coatings on the filaments or fibers. The resin layer may be electrostatically deposited (paragraph 0021). The application of the surface coating serves to provide cohesion to the tape (paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the tape of Gaillard, et al. as modified by Zentner, et al. further modified with the additional particle layer of either Glover, et al. or Torres Martinez for the purpose of producing a tape with a multi-layer surface coating.
Response to Arguments
The examiner notes that applicant has cancelled the withdrawn product claims (elected with traverse) in the prior Quayle action. Based on a review of the prior examiner’s search and an updated review and search of the art cited in the IDS along with the current examiner’s search, the examiner has withdrawn the allowable subject matter and provided the rejection above. It is noted that the primary reference of Gaillard, et al. in view of Zentner, et al. do render obvious claim 1 and subsequently the dependent claims 2 – 10. In addition, the tertiary references of Glover, et al. and Torres Martinez have been applied to reject claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783