DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuer (US 2011/0305907 A1).
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuer (US 2011/0305907 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19, Scheuer discloses: (1) a composite product (claims 1-13) comprising: fibers (claims 1 & 6-7; see also paragraphs 0011 & 0033); and a liquid polymer resin mixed with a curing agent and infused into the fibers (claims 1 & 3-5: see “second mixture”; see also paragraphs 0019-0029 & 0036);
(6) wherein the liquid polymer resin comprises at least one of thermoset epoxies or aliphatic amines (claims 1, 3 & 4: see “second mixture”; see also paragraphs 0019-0029);
(8) a method of making a composite product (claims 1-12), the method comprising: mixing a liquid polymer resin with a curing agent to form a resin matrix (claims 1, 3 & 4: see “second mixture”; see also paragraphs 0019-0029); infusing the resin matrix into fibers (claim 5; see also paragraph 0036); and curing the fibers infused with the resin matrix to form the composite product (paragraphs 0035 & 0038);
(14) a composite product made by the method (claim 13; see also paragraph 0038); and
(19) a composite product made by the method (claim 13; see also paragraph 0038), wherein the liquid polymer resin comprises at least one of thermoset epoxies or aliphatic amines (claims 1, 3 & 4: see “second mixture”; see also paragraphs 0019-0029).
Scheuer fails to disclose a specific embodiment prepared with: (1, 6, 8 14 & 19) basalt fibers. Rather, he contemplates fiber reinforcement materials selected from glass fibers, ceramic fibers, boron fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, synthetic polymer fibers, and natural polymer fibers (see claim 7; see also paragraphs 0011 & 0033). This appears to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the instantly claimed basalt fibers. At the very least, it is sufficiently specific to obviously satisfy the instantly claimed basalt fiber.
Therefore if not anticipated by Scheuer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite of Scheuer with basalt fibers because: Scheuer contemplates fiber reinforcement materials selected from glass fibers, ceramic fibers, boron fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, synthetic polymer fibers, and natural polymer fibers.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Barnell et al. (US 2015/0099834 A1).
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Barnell et al. (US 2015/0099834 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19, Barnell et al. disclose: (1) a composite product (Abstract; claims 1-18 & 19-25) comprising: fibers (claims 1 & 7-8; see also paragraph 0023); and a liquid polymer resin mixed with a curing agent and infused into the fibers (claims 1 & 9-11; see also paragraphs 0029-0032);
(6) wherein the liquid polymer resin comprises at least one of thermoset epoxies or aliphatic amines (claims 1 & 9-11; see also paragraphs 0031-0032);
(8) a method of making a composite product (Abstract; claims 1-18), the method comprising: mixing a liquid polymer resin with a curing agent to form a resin matrix (claims 1 & 9-11; see also paragraphs 0031-0032); infusing the resin matrix into fibers (claims 1 & 7-8; see also paragraphs 0023 & 0029); and curing the fibers infused with the resin matrix to form the composite product (claims 1 & 18; see also paragraphs 0030 & 0034);
(14) a composite product made by the method (Abstract; claims 19-25); and
(19) a composite product made by the method (Abstract; claims 19-25), wherein the liquid polymer resin comprises at least one of thermoset epoxies or aliphatic amines (claims 1 & 9-11; see also paragraphs 0031-0032).
Barnell et al. fail to disclose a specific embodiment prepared with: (1, 6, 8 14 & 19) basalt fibers. Rather, they contemplate fiber reinforcement materials selected from carbon fibers, glass fibers, aramid fibers, boron fibers, basalt fibers, and polymer fibers (see claim 7; see also paragraph 0023). This appears to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the instantly claimed basalt fibers. At the very least, it is sufficiently specific to obviously satisfy the instantly claimed basalt fiber.
Therefore if not anticipated by Barnell et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite of Barnell et al. with basalt fibers because: Barnell et al. contemplate fiber reinforcement materials selected from carbon fibers, glass fibers, aramid fibers, boron fibers, basalt fibers, and polymer fibers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuer (US 2011/0305907 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, and 16, the teachings of Scheuer are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Scheuer fails to disclose a specific embodiment: (2, 9 & 15) further comprising: an additive including at least one of graphene or graphite mixed with the liquid polymer resin and the curing agent and infused into the basalt fibers; (3, 10 & 16) wherein the additive is weighed at about 0.1% to 0.3% of a weight of the liquid polymer resin and curing agent. Rather, he contemplates the use of various additives, including graphite powders (see paragraph 0037). These additives are provided in minor amounts up to 15% by weight of the infusion composition (see paragraph 0037). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed additive (and amount thereof) in the infusion composition of Scheuer because: (a) Scheuer contemplates the use of various additives, including graphite powders; (b) the additives of Scheuer are provided in minor amounts up to 15% by weight of the infusion composition; and (c) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Scheuer are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Scheuer fails to disclose a specific embodiment: (5) wherein the basalt fibers are provided as a basalt fibers fabric which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent and cured to form a composite panel. Rather, he contemplates various forms of reinforcement material, including scrims, nonwovens, knits or wovens (see claim 6; paragraphs 0011 & 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite of Scheuer with the instantly claimed fabric because: Scheuer contemplates various forms of reinforcement material, including scrims, nonwovens, knits or wovens.
Claims 5, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnell et al. (US 2015/0099834 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the teachings of Barnell et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to disclose a specific embodiment: (5) wherein the basalt fibers are provided as a basalt fibers fabric which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent and cured to form a composite panel; and (12) forming a basalt plain weave fabric of the basalt fibers which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent. Rather, they contemplate various forms of reinforcement material, including fabrics, such as plain weave fabrics (see claim 8; paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite of Barnell et al. with the instantly claimed (plain weave) fabric because: Barnell et al. contemplate various forms of reinforcement material, including fabrics, such as plain weave fabrics.
Regarding claim 18, the teachings of Barnell et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (18) laying up a plain weave fabric by hand which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent. However, it should be noted that this is a product-by-process limitation. In light of this, it has been found that, “[E]ven 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 as or obvious 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of Barnell et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Barnell et al. disclose: (13) laying up a (plain weave) fabric which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent (see claim 1). They fail to explicitly disclose: (13) laying up the fabric by hand. However, the step of “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold” would have obviously embraced manual, automated and semi-automated/manual techniques.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention lay up the fabric by hand in the process of Barnell et al. because: the step of “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold” in Barnell et al. would have obviously embraced manual, automated and semi-automated/manual techniques.
Claims 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuer (US 2011/0305907 A1) in view of Barnell et al. (US 2015/0099834 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Scheuer are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Scheuer discloses the use of a woven fabric (see claim 6; paragraphs 0011 & 0033); however, he fails to explicitly disclose: (12) forming a basalt plain weave fabric of the basalt fibers which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent. However, Barnell et al. demonstrate that plain weave fabrics are recognized in the art as suitable woven fabrics for this type of composite (see claim 8; paragraph 0023). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the composite of Scheuer with the instantly claimed plain weave fabric because: (a) Scheuer discloses the use of a woven fabric; (b) Barnell et al. demonstrate that plain weave fabrics are recognized in the art as suitable woven fabrics for this type of composite; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings of {Scheuer and Barnell et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (18) laying up a fabric by hand which is infused with the liquid polymer resin mixed with the curing agent. However, it should be noted that this is a product-by-process limitation. In light of this, it has been found that, “[E]ven 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 as or obvious 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of {Scheuer and Barnell et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Scheuer discloses a generic infusion technique (see claims 1 & 5; paragraph 0036). The teachings of Barnell et al. demonstrate that this would have involved “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold” (see claim 1), which corresponds to laying up. They fail to explicitly disclose: (13) laying up the fabric by hand. However, the step of “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold” would have obviously embraced manual, automated and semi-automated/manual techniques.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention lay up the fabric by hand in the process resulting from the combined teachings of {Scheuer and Barnell et al.} because: (a) Scheuer discloses a generic infusion technique; (b) the teachings of Barnell et al. demonstrate that this would have involved “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold”, which corresponds to laying up; and (c) the step of “applying a fiber reinforcement over the mold” would have obviously embraced manual, automated and semi-automated/manual techniques.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuer (US 2011/0305907 A1) in view of Corley et al. (US 2011/0319564 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, the teachings of Scheuer are as set forth above and incorporated herein. He discloses the use of graphite powders in his infusion composition, which allow for induction heating (see paragraph 0037). These powders are preferably sized less than 100 microns (see paragraphs 0037). He fails to explicitly disclose: (4, 11 & 17) wherein the additive includes at least one of graphene nanoparticles or graphite nanoparticles.
Corley et al. disclose a similar epoxy-based composition used in the formation of composites (see Abstract; paragraphs 0120-0131). They also contemplate the addition of filler-type additives to their composition (see paragraphs 0080-0084). They demonstrate that graphite nanoparticles are recognized in the art as suitable graphite additives for this type of epoxy-based composition and composite. In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add graphite nanoparticles to the infusion composition of Scheuer because: (a) Scheuer discloses the use of graphite powders in his infusion composition, which allow for induction heating; (b) the powders of Scheuer are preferably sized less than 100 microns; (c) Corley et al. disclose a similar epoxy-based composition used in the formation of composites; (d) Corley et al. also contemplate the addition of filler-type additives to their composition and demonstrate that graphite nanoparticles are recognized in the art as suitable graphite additives for this type of epoxy-based composition and composite; and (e) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
September 28, 2025