DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 11 December 2025, amending the title, claims 1, 8-13, 15, 23, 29, 35, and canceling claims 16, 22, are acknowledged.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 20-21, 23-25, 28-30, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gideon et al. (US 8,709,319 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gideon discloses a method of providing a modified polymeric composite flake for use in forming articles (title/abstract), comprising:
(a) providing a composite having at least one polymeric matrix material and long reinforcing fibers of a first fiber material extending through the polymeric matrix material (3:44+, 4:50+); and
(b) forming from the composite at least one flake, wherein the at least one flake comprises an exterior surface having an exterior edge, a portion of the exterior edge being configured to provide at least two exterior edge features, e.g. the sides of flake 24f or 24h, to a portion of the exterior edge of the at least one flake thereby providing a modified polymeric flake, wherein the at least two exterior edge features on the portion of the exterior edge having the edge features together form a pattern. (FIG. 2-3; 4:8+).
Regarding claim 2, Gideon discloses forming the at least one flake by cutting the composite to form the at least one flake (FIG. 2; 4:8+).
Regarding claim 3, Gideon discloses the flake is cut by a cutting device (FIG. 2; 4:8+).
Regarding claim 4, Gideon discloses the composite is in a form selected from a tape, a plate, and a sheet (4:50+).
Regarding claim 5, Gideon discloses the long reinforcing fibers within the composite are unidirectional (4:8+).
Regarding claim 6, Gideon discloses the long reinforcing fibers within the composite are continuous long reinforcing fibers (4:8+).
Regarding claim 7, Gideon discloses the composite is in the form of a tape and the long reinforcing fibers are unidirectional continuous long reinforcing fibers (4:8+).
Regarding claim 20, Gideon discloses the at least one exterior edge feature is configured to have a shape selected from a triangle shape, a parabola shape, or a bullet shape (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Gideon discloses the at least one exterior edge feature is a parallelogram, having a rectangular shape (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Gideon discloses that there are two or more exterior edge features on the portion of the exterior edge having the edge features and together the exterior edge features form a pattern (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Gideon discloses the at least one flake has four exterior edge portions, two of which are opposing exterior edge portions, each of which two opposing exterior edge portions has the pattern formed thereon so that the pattern extends along substantially all of the two opposing exterior edge portions and so that a distance measured across the at least one flake longitudinally between the two opposing edge portions remains substantially the same throughout the pattern (FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 24-25, Gideon discloses that polymeric matrix material is a thermoplastic and is PEI (polyetherimide) PPS (polyphenylene sulphide), PES (polyethersulfone), PEEK (polyetheretherketone), PEKK (polyetheretherketone), and PEKK-FC (polyetherketoneketone-fc grade) (3:44+).
Regarding claim 28, Gideon discloses the long reinforcing fibers in the at least one flake are one or more of carbon, metal, ceramic and/or glass fibers (3:44+).
Regarding claim 29, Gideon discloses the exterior edge of the at least one flake defines on the exterior surface of the at least one flake a surface area having an overall shape that is generally a triangle, a circle, a parallelogram or a trapezoid, and the at least one exterior edge feature is formed on at least one edge portion of such surface area shape (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 30, Gideon discloses the surface area defined by the exterior edge is a parallelogram selected from a square, a rectangle and a rhombus (FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 33-34, Gideon discloses a substantially identical process and therefore the article would necessarily have an average tensile strength that is at least about 30% greater, or 40-60% greater than a tensile strength of an article formed using a plurality of flakes formed of the same material, and having a same overall shape and size, but that lack the exterior edge features. Because, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112 for further details.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gideon et al. (US 8,709,319 B2) as applied to claim 1 or 24 above, further in view of Fortunato et al. (US 10,160,146 B2).
Regarding claim 26 or 27, Gideon does not appear to expressly disclose fluoropolymers or thermosets.
However, Fortunato discloses a similar method of forming fiber reinforced composites (title/abstract) which includes fluoropolymers (such as melt-processible fluoroplastics (such as copolymers of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and at least one perfluoroalkylvinyl ether (PAVE) (PFA), copolymers of TFE and at least one other perfluorinated alkylene (such as hexafluoropropylene) (FEP)), poly(chlorotrifluoroethylene), polyethyl chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE), polyethyltrifluoroethylene (ETFE), polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)) and epoxy resins, polyethylene chlorinates, biscitraconicimides (BCI), bismaleimides (BMI), bismaleimide/triazine/epoxy resins, cyanate esters, cyanate resins, furanic resins, phenolic resins, urea-formaldehyde resins, melamine-formaldehyde resins, phthalocyanine resins, polybenzoxazole resins, acetylene-terminated polyimide resins, silicones, polytriazines, polyalkyds, and xylene resins (5:11-6:16).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the matrix of Gideon to include the polymers of Fortunato, because such materials are conventional in the art and could be used with expected results.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gideon et al. (US 8,709,319 B2) as applied to claim 30 above, further in view of Koshi et al. (US 11,739,185 B2).
Gideon does not appear to expressly disclose the dimensions of the flakes.
However, Koshi discloses similar fiber tapes (title/abstract) having thicknesses of 0.01 to 1.5 mm (7:26+) and sizes of 40mm x 8 mm (SA = 320 mm2) (14:55+), which overlap the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.04).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gideon to include the sizes of Koshi, because such sizes are conventional in the art and could be produced with expected results. Additionally the skilled artisan would recognize that the size of the flakes could be readily modified within the claimed range with expected results by changing the feed rate to the cutter or changing the shape of the die.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15, 17-19 and 35-39 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Specifically, newly amended claim 8 requires that at least one of the two exterior edges has two angled sides and therefore does not read on the edge feature being an angled side as recited in Gideon. Additionally, the subject matter of dependent claims 15 and 35 require that:
PNG
media_image1.png
334
1238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Said zig-zag edge feature is best exemplified by FIG. 3. This zig-zag pattern is not taught by the prior art and is novel.
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742