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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6, 15, 23-25, 27-29 and 38 in the reply filed on 26 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-22, 26 and 30-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6, 15, 23-25, 27-29 and 38 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.
Currently, none of the elected claims is presented in independent form. At least one of the elected claims should be presented in independent form (see MPEP §608.01(i)).
Claims 6, 15, 23, 27 and 38 currently depend from non-elected claims (an elected claim should either be presented in independent form, or a an elected dependent claim should depend from another elected claim).
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.
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(s) 6, 15, 23-25, 27-29 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0126521 A1) in combination with Parrinello et al (EP 0353493 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuda et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0034], [0035], [0179] – [0181] and [0223]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0002] (method for molding composite molded bodies of a thermoplastic resin-fiber composite material) and [0179] (glass fibers were used as continuous strengthening fibers) of Yasuda et al), including a heating rate of 200 to 330°C/min (see paragraphs [0035] (temperature increase rate is 150°C/min or more) and [0223] (temperature increase rate of 200°C/min) of Yasuda et al) and a cooling rate of 10 to 120°C/min (see paragraph [0034] (temperature decrease rate of 100°C/min or more) of Yasuda et al). Yasuda et al does not teach (1) an interfacial amount of 100,000 m-1 or more (i.e., the amount of interface where the continuous reinforcing fiber and the resin matrix contact each other). Parrinello et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 2, lines 1-5; page 2, lines 30-40; page 2, lines 49-53; page 9, lines 7-22) teaches a process (see page 2, lines 1-5 (producing reinforced polymer products) of Parrinello et al), including an interfacial amount (see page 2, lines 30-40 (fiber strands must permit good interfacial contact with the matrix polymer in the molded product; good interfacial contact between the mat (of fiber strands) and the matrix polymer is produced by a laminating operation that allows the matrix polymer to flow into, around and through the fibers) of Parrinello et al), and the interfacial amount would have been obvious to, and readily determined by, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Yasuda et al in view of Parrinello et al in order to produce treated shapes having good thermal stability (see page 2, lines 49-53 of Parrinello et al).
Regarding claim 15, see paragraphs [0180] (sizing agent) and [0181] (silane coupling agent) of Yasuda et al; page 9, lines 7-22 (laminator for compression molding; residence times (of the resin) should be long enough to insure thorough impregnation of the mats) of Parrinello et al. The contact angle in impregnation rate would have been obvious to, and readily determined by, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Yasuda et al in view of Parrinello et al in order to produce treated shapes having good thermal stability (see page 2, lines 49-53 of Parrinello et al).
Regarding claims 23-25, see page 7, lines 9-22 (laminator for compression molding) of Parrinello et al, and paragraph (temperature decrease rate of 100°C/min or more) of Yasuda et al. The full width and full width ratios would have been obvious to, and readily determined by, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Yasuda et al in view of Parrinello et al in order to produce treated shapes having good thermal stability (see page 2, lines 49-53 of Parrinello et al).
Regarding claims 27-29, see paragraphs [0180] (sizing agent) and [0181] (silane coupling agent) of Yasuda et al. The interfacial shear strength and contact angle would have been obvious to, and readily determined by, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Yasuda et al in view of Parrinello et al in order to produce treated shapes having good thermal stability (see page 2, lines 49-53 of Parrinello et al).
Regarding claim 38, see page 9, lines 7-22 (residence time (of the resin) should be long enough to insure thorough impregnation of the mat) of Parrinello et al. The impregnation speed and bending strength would have been obvious to, and readily determined by, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Yasuda et al in view of Parrinello et al in order to produce treated shapes having good thermal stability (see page 2, lines 49-53 of Parrinello et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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 A. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742