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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “ultra high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The molecular weight of the polyethylene fiber in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term ultra high.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending form claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112454724) in view of Zhou et al. (CN204728054) and Huang et al. (CN112848569).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al. discloses a process for preparing a prepreg by a continuous method comprising the following steps:
Step S1: preparing a raw material (abstract);
Step S2: heating and stirring the raw material, and spinning in a spinning box to form a semi-finished ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber (claim 3);
Step S3: performing multistage drafting on the fiber (para 35), uniformly laying the semi-finished ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber into a layer, and immersing the layer in a liquid matrix (abstract);
Step S4: solidifying the liquid matrix on the layer of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber to form an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber prepreg (abstract); and
Step S5: aligning two sheet of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber prepregs with each other, and then preforming lamination to form a weft-free fabric (claim 2).
Zhou et al. does not teach performing multistage drafting on the layer while immersing in a liquid matrix, and orthogonally aligning the two sheets of the ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber prepregs with each other in warp and weft directions. However, Zhou ‘054 teaches the step of performing drafting on the layer while immersing in a liquid matrix (see abstract, claim 3, fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou et al. with the teaching of Zhou ‘054 since Zhou ‘054 teaches that the step of performing drafting on the layer while immersing in a liquid matrix is known in the art of forming weftless cloth.
Huang et al. teaches a polyethylene fibre composite cloth with high protection performance is formed by cross-lamination of multi-layer single-direction polyethylene fibre cloth for a cross-laminated composite (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou et al. with the teaching of Huang et al. since Huang et al. teaches that preferably, the composite structure between the unidirectional polyethylene fibre cloth is [0/90 degrees/45 degrees/135 degrees]n, the structure polyethylene fibre composite cloth has excellent bullet-proof performance, further has good stab-proof performance and concave-reducing performance (para 23).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Zhou ‘054 and Huang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN20868514).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the multistage drafting device comprises a frame ratably provided with a plurality of drafting rollers parallel to each other, provided with a plurality of drive motors in a same number as that of the drafting rollers and one-to-one connected with the drafting rollers in a transmission way, and provided with a finishing assembly for finishing and laying a fiber. However, Chen teaches a pre-drafting device for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber production, comprising a draft chamber 1, a bearing block 2, a bearing 3, a shaft 4, a roller 5, a motor 6, a polyethylene fiber body 7, a wind box 8, a blower 9, a firs air inlet 10, an air outlet 11, heating wires 12, a negative pressure fan 13, an air duct 14 and a second air inlet 15, the inner wall of the drafting chamber 1 is mounted with a bearing block 2, and a bearing 3 is provided in the bearing housing 2, one end of the shaft 4 is fixed to the inner wall of the bearing 3, and a motor 6 is connected to the other end of the shaft 4, and the outer wall of the bearing 3 is mounted with rollers 5, the inside of the roller 5 is provided with a polyethylene fiber body 7 (see par 18-27, fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou et al. with the drafting device as taught by Chen since Chen teaches the drafting device is suitable for drafting ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers. Chen does not teach a finishing assembly configured for finishing and laying a fiber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a finishing assembly for finishing the fibers in the drafting device since Zhou et al. teaches uniform laying of fibers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach the finishing assembly with the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach the immersing device with the claimed arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742