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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 3, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson (US 20180135212) in view of Mosleh (Composites Part A, Vol. 29A (1998), pp. 611-617) and Escowitz (US 10,807,319).
As to claim 1, Johanson teaches a method for manufacturing a reinforced synthetic product. Johanson teaches forming a fabric having a woven pattern (Fig. 5) which is made of at least one filament bundle extending in a first direction ([0031]), the at least one filament bundle including a reinforcing fiber material ([0031], carbon) combined with a thermoplastic material ([0031], thermoplastic). When the Johanson fibrous tapes are woven in a first and second transverse direction as depicted in Johanson’s Fig. 5, the second direction provides thermoplastic filaments woven with the filament bundle ([0031]) and would provide a bendable fabric preform sheet ([0030], flexible).
Johanson is silent to (a) curved product geometry, and (b) combining a heat-formable material with the fabric to form sheet.
Regarding (a), Escowitz teaches forming a curved geometry (Fig. 3D) by compression molding (Abstract) a composite which may contain woven (10:17; 9:213) reinforcing fiber material (Title) and a thermoplastic matrix (7:25-43). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the reinforcing fiber material into Mosleh because this would provide an obvious improvement of reinforcing the Mosleh article in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the Escowitz curved geometry into Mosleh because (i) this is an obvious change in shape, and (ii) one would have been motivated to provide a curved geometry to avoid sharp corners.
Regarding (b), Mosleh teaches a method for manufacturing a synthetic product comprising forming a woven fabric (Fig. 1) from a filament bundle and combining a heat-formable material (page 613, left column) with the fabric to form a fabric preform sheet (Fig. 12). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Mosleh material into Johanson because Johanson teaches/suggests further impregnating the fabric with a matrix ([0022]) and Mosleh provides a matrix material for impregnating a fabric material within the scope of the Johanson teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 2, Johanson provides a carbon fiber ([0031]). As to claims 3 and 5-7, Johanson already provides a polyethylene thermoplastic filament. Mosleh teaches a process where a polyethylene thermoplastic matrix is combined with the polyethylene thermoplastic filament combined by a physical hot press process. See rejection of claim 1. As to claim 11, Johanson teaches fibrous tapes with 1k-60k filaments ([0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range. As to claims 12 and 13, Mosleh positions the fabric and matrix resin in a mold (Fig. 3) and molding at a temperature (Fig. 2) higher than the softening point (Table 1, Melting Point) and inherently lower than a pyrolysis temperature. While Johanson is silent to the curved geometry mold, Escowitz inherently provides a curved geometry mold in order to produce a curved article (Fig. 3D), as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 14, Johanson teaches a method for manufacturing a reinforced synthetic product. Johanson teaches forming a fabric having a woven pattern (Fig. 5) which is made of at least one filament bundle extending in a first direction ([0031]), the at least one filament bundle including a reinforcing fiber material ([0031], carbon) combined with a thermoplastic material ([0031], thermoplastic). When the Johanson fibrous tapes are woven in a first and second transverse direction as depicted in Johanson’s Fig. 5, the second direction provides thermoplastic filaments woven with the filament bundle ([0031]) and would provide a bendable fabric preform sheet ([0030], flexible).
Johanson is silent to (a) curved product geometry, and (b) positioning a bendable fabric preform sheet into a mold and molding the sheet.
Regarding (a), Escowitz teaches forming a curved geometry (Fig. 3D) by compression molding (Abstract) a composite which may contain woven (10:17; 9:213) reinforcing fiber material (Title) and a thermoplastic matrix (7:25-43). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the reinforcing fiber material into Mosleh because this would provide an obvious improvement of reinforcing the Mosleh article in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the Escowitz curved geometry into Mosleh because (i) this is an obvious change in shape, and (ii) one would have been motivated to provide a curved geometry to avoid sharp corners.
Regarding (b), Mosleh teaches providing a woven and bendable fabric (Fig. 1) from a filament bundle and positioning the bendable fabric into a mold. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Mosleh material into Johanson because Johanson teaches/suggests further impregnating the fabric with a matrix ([0022]) and Mosleh provides a method of molding a fabric with a matrix material for impregnating a fabric material within the scope of the Johanson teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 15, Johanson provides a carbon fiber ([0031]). As to claims 16 and 18-19, Johanson already provides a polyethylene thermoplastic filament. Mosleh teaches a process where a polyethylene thermoplastic matrix is combined with the polyethylene thermoplastic filament (same thermoplastic material) combined by a physical hot press process. See rejection of claim 14. As to claim 20, Mosleh positions the fabric and matrix resin in a mold (Fig. 3) and molding at a temperature (Fig. 2) higher than the softening point (Table 1, Melting Point) and inherently lower than a pyrolysis temperature of the heat formable material.
Claim 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson (US 20180135212) in view of Mosleh (Composites Part A, Vol. 29A (1998), pp. 611-617) and Escowitz (US 10,807,319), and further in view of Cramer (US 20140227474). Johanson, Mosleh and Escowitz teach the subject matter of claims 1 and 14 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 4 and 17, Johanson, Mosleh and Escowitz do not teach the claimed 3.5-15 wt.% thermoplastic material.
Cramer teaches providing a fabric comprising reinforcement fibers and thermoplastic matrix fibers (claim 1) where the two materials are provided in a fiber volume ratio of 15-85% to 85-15% (claim 10). While Cramer does not specifically teach a weight fraction, in light of the higher density of carbon fiber (approximately 1.75-2.00 g/cc) than the listed matrix fibers such as polyethylene (approximately 0.9-0.97 g/cc), when the Cramer carbon fiber content is at the high end of the disclosed range (85 volume percent), it’s higher density would result in the Cramer material falling within the claimed weight percent range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the weight percent ratio of polyethylene/matrix fiber to carbon/reinforcement fiber from Cramer into the modified Johanson process because one would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of matrix fibers to reinforcement fibers to provide high strength by providing a high carbon/reinforcement to polyethylene/matrix fiber ratio.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson (US 20180135212) in view of Mosleh (Composites Part A, Vol. 29A (1998), pp. 611-617).
As to claim 1, Johanson teaches a method for manufacturing a reinforced synthetic product. Johanson teaches forming a fabric having a woven pattern (Fig. 5) which is made of at least one filament bundle extending in a first direction ([0031]), the at least one filament bundle including a reinforcing fiber material ([0031], carbon) combined with a thermoplastic material ([0031], thermoplastic). When the Johanson fibrous tapes are woven in a first and second transverse direction as depicted in Johanson’s Fig. 5, the second direction provides thermoplastic filaments woven with the filament bundle ([0031]) and would provide a bendable fabric preform sheet ([0030], flexible).
Johanson is silent to (a) curved product geometry, and (b) combining a heat-formable material with the fabric to form sheet.
Regarding (a), changes in shape or aesthetic design changes are generally obvious (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and 2144.04(I), and cases cited therein). The claimed curved geometry would be met by most configurations that are not flat, and curved geometry products would have been obvious as a change in shape or design choice.
Regarding (b), Mosleh teaches a method for manufacturing a synthetic product comprising forming a woven fabric (Fig. 1) from a filament bundle and combining a heat-formable material (page 613, left column) with the fabric to form a fabric preform sheet (Fig. 12). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Mosleh material into Johanson because Johanson teaches/suggests further impregnating the fabric with a matrix ([0022]) and Mosleh provides a matrix material for impregnating a fabric material within the scope of the Johanson teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 2, Johanson provides a carbon fiber ([0031]). As to claims 3 and 5-7, Johanson already provides a polyethylene thermoplastic filament. Mosleh teaches a process where a polyethylene thermoplastic matrix is combined with the polyethylene thermoplastic filament combined by a physical hot press process. See rejection of claim 1. As to claim 11, Johanson teaches fibrous tapes with 1k-60k filaments ([0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range. As to claims 12 and 13, Mosleh positions the fabric and matrix resin in a mold (Fig. 3) and molding at a temperature (Fig. 2) higher than the softening point (Table 1, Melting Point) and inherently lower than a pyrolysis temperature.
As to claim 14, Johanson teaches a method for manufacturing a reinforced synthetic product. Johanson teaches forming a fabric having a woven pattern (Fig. 5) which is made of at least one filament bundle extending in a first direction ([0031]), the at least one filament bundle including a reinforcing fiber material ([0031], carbon) combined with a thermoplastic material ([0031], thermoplastic). When the Johanson fibrous tapes are woven in a first and second transverse direction as depicted in Johanson’s Fig. 5, the second direction provides thermoplastic filaments woven with the filament bundle ([0031]) and would provide a bendable fabric preform sheet ([0030], flexible).
Johanson is silent to (a) curved product geometry, and (b) positioning a bendable fabric preform sheet into a mold and molding the sheet.
Regarding (a), changes in shape or aesthetic design changes are generally obvious (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and 2144.04(I), and cases cited therein). The claimed curved geometry would be met by most configurations that are not flat, and curved geometry products would have been obvious as a change in shape or design choice.
Regarding (b), Mosleh teaches providing a woven and bendable fabric (Fig. 1) from a filament bundle and positioning the bendable fabric into a mold. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Mosleh material into Johanson because Johanson teaches/suggests further impregnating the fabric with a matrix ([0022]) and Mosleh provides a method of molding a fabric with a matrix material for impregnating a fabric material within the scope of the Johanson teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 15, Johanson provides a carbon fiber ([0031]). As to claims 16 and 18-19, Johanson already provides a polyethylene thermoplastic filament. Mosleh teaches a process where a polyethylene thermoplastic matrix is combined with the polyethylene thermoplastic filament (same thermoplastic material) combined by a physical hot press process. See rejection of claim 14. As to claim 20, Mosleh positions the fabric and matrix resin in a mold (Fig. 3) and molding at a temperature (Fig. 2) higher than the softening point (Table 1, Melting Point) and inherently lower than a pyrolysis temperature of the heat formable material.
Claim 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johanson (US 20180135212) in view of Mosleh (Composites Part A, Vol. 29A (1998), pp. 611-617), and further in view of Cramer (US 20140227474). Johanson and Mosleh teach the subject matter of claims 1 and 14 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 4 and 17, Johanson and Mosleh do not teach the claimed 3.5-15 wt.% thermoplastic material.
Cramer teaches providing a fabric comprising reinforcement fibers and thermoplastic matrix fibers (claim 1) where the two materials are provided in a fiber volume ratio of 15-85% to 85-15% (claim 10). While Cramer does not specifically teach a weight fraction, in light of the higher density of carbon fiber (approximately 1.75-2.00 g/cc) than the listed matrix fibers such as polyethylene (approximately 0.9-0.97 g/cc), when the Cramer carbon fiber content is at the high end of the disclosed range (85 volume percent), it’s higher density would result in the Cramer material falling within the claimed weight percent range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the weight percent ratio of polyethylene/matrix fiber to carbon/reinforcement fiber from Cramer into the modified Johanson process because one would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of matrix fibers to reinforcement fibers to provide high strength by providing a high carbon/reinforcement to polyethylene/matrix fiber ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are addressed by the new rejections above. While is it noted that Applicant’s arguments request an interview, in light of the new rejections above, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview after considering these new rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights