DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 20 and 32, was entered on 1/27/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the scope of long and short fibers. This is persuasive and this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Rapp fails to teach the newly added range of 5-20 mass% alumina. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented below in response to this amendment.
Applicant also argues that Rapp teaches away from higher alumina amounts based on the comparative examples. This is not persuasive. Rapp teaches that there are benefits to the lower amounts of alumina used in its invention, but also explains that higher concentrations are conventional in the art and would produce a suitable rockwool fiber (see, e.g., p. 4:5-13). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. MPEP § 2123(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 20-34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp et al. (WO98/18618) in light of Demott et al. (US 2018/0022628).
Claims 20-21, 30-31 and 34: Rapp teaches a reinforcing glass fiber (Abst.) comprising, by mass, 54-70% SiO2, 0-4% Al2O3, 0-6% Na2O, 0-6% K2O, 0-6% MgO, 10-28% CaO, 6-17% Fe2O3, 0-5 TiO2, and 56-72% SiO2 + Al2O3 (p4:14-31). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected fibers having the claimed composition with the predictable expectation of success.
Rapp teaches that the amount of Al2O3 is about 0-4% and that conventional rockwool can include higher amounts, but fails to expressly teach 5-20% (p. 4:5-13). Demott teaches a rockwool fiber used as a reinforcing material (¶¶ 0001-0002) and explains that conventional amounts of Al2O3 are from 12-18 wt% (¶ 0003). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, because Rapp teaches that higher amounts are conventional and because Demott teaches that conventional amounts include amounts of 12-18 wt%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a higher concentration of Al2O3 in the fibers of Rapp with the predictable expectation of successfully forming a suitable reinforcement fiber.
Claims 22 and 32-33: Rapp further teaches that the fibers comprise 56-72% SiO2 + Al2O3 (p4:14-31), but fails to teach the claimed Al2O3/(SiO2 + Al2O3) ratio. However, Rapp explains that higher amounts of Al2O3 are typical in the art (4:5-13) and Demott teaches Al2O3 amounts of 12-18%. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have used an amount of Al2O3 which satisfied the claimed ratio depending on the desired properties of the fiber.
Claims 23-29: Each of these claims recites a property of the fiber. Because Rapp teaches fibers with the same composition as those which applicant discloses to possess the claimed properties, these properties are considered inherent in the fibers of Rapp.
Claim 36: Rapp teaches a fiber blanket (i.e. fiber sheet) comprising the fibers (1:7-14).
Claim 37: A fiber has a rod shape, therefore Rapp teaches rods of the fibers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp and Demott in light of Lee et al. (US 2007/0039703).
Claim 35: Rapp fails to teach a chopped strand of the fibers. However Lee explains that mineral fibers can be used to form chopped strands (Abst.; ¶ 0032). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have used the mineral fibers of Rapp to form chopped strands depending on the desired end use of the fibers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp and Demott in light of Merfield (US 2002/0169256).
Claim 37: Rapp fails to teach forming a fishing rod or golf shaft rod from the fibers. Merfield teaches that mineral fibers can be used as reinforcing fibers in a fishing rod or golf shaft (¶ 0133). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have used the mineral fibers of Rapp to form rods depending on the desired end use of the fibers.
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712