Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/258,093

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A FIBROUS MATERIAL WHICH IS MADE OF CONTINUOUS FIBRES AND IMPREGNATED WITH A THERMOPLASTIC POLYMER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
LIU, XUE H
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arkema France
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
622 granted / 854 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -2% lift
Without
With
+-1.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
882
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 854 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 claims 1-2, 4, 6-16 and 19-29 in the reply filed on 9-16-25 is acknowledged. Claim 30 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9-16-25. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 1-29 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Tg" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pre-impregnation system" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-29 are rejected for depending from claim 1. The term “high” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “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 speed of. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the molten route" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claims 3-4, 11, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claims 5-6, the claim recites “a heating means SC”. It’s not clear if it’s referring to the heating system SC recited in claim 1. Claims 7-8 are rejected for depending from claim 5. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claims 10-11, 21,24, 26-27, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 11-16 are rejected for depending from claim 10. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the reinforcing fibres" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the diameter of the roller" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reinforcing fibre" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the subsequent method" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the chain ends" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 21, 24, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claims 22, 25, the phrase "notably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 28 recites the limitation "the use of the method" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 is rejected for depending from claim 28. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach said spread fibrous material being cooled below the Tg of the sizing thermoplastic polymer by means of a cooling system before it is placed in contact with said thermoplastic polymer matrix int eh pre-impregnation system to carry out the pre-impregnation step. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594704
MOLD STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MOLDED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594365
IONIC COMPOUNDS FOR MEDICAL DEVICE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594730
METHOD OF FORMING A WIND TURBINE ROTOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583167
Cooling Ring for Cooling a Film Tube
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576569
METHOD FOR ADJUSTING THE CLOSING FORCE OF A MOLD OF A PLASTICS PROCESSING MACHINE, IN PARTICULAR AN INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (-1.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 854 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month