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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2006/0234028 to Pardo in view of USPAP 2017/0297295 to Bhatnagar.
Claim 1, Pardo discloses a process for the production of a fiber-reinforced composite material, comprising the steps of: unwinding an aramid fabric on conveyor means including an upper conveyor belt and a lower conveyor belt and having a first hot section and a second cold section; dry distributing a powder of thermoplastic material on a surface of said aramid fabric; conveying said surface of said aramid fabric along said conveyor means into said first hot section and heating said powder to a melting temperature and compressing said powder on said surface of said fabric in said first hot section so as to form a composite material having an amorphous thermoplastic matrix inherently partially interpenetrated and adhered to said fabric as said fabric is unwound; and conveying said composite material along said conveyor means into said second cold section and cooling said composite material in said second cold section thereby to facilitate detachment of said composite material from said conveyor means (see entire document including Figures 1-2, [0001], [0015]-[0023], [0033], [0034], [0039]-[0049] and [0074]-[0078]).
Pardo does not appear to mention the specific size of the powder but Bhatnagar discloses that it is known in the art to use micrometric powder so that the particles remain localized in their original location (see entire document including [0008] and [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fiber-reinforced composite material of Pardo with micrometric powder so that the particles remain localized in their original location.
Claim 2, said powder (2) is heated to a temperature from 100 to 250°C and is subsequently compressed at a pressure ranging from 0.1 N/cm2 to 200 N/cm2 ([0039]-[0043]).
Claim 3, said cooling of said composite material (10) is carried out below a melting or glass transition temperature of said thermoplastic matrix (12) ([0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Pardo fails to teach or suggest a conveyor means including an upper conveyor belt and a lower conveyor belt. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 2 of Pardo shows a conveyor means that includes two lower conveyor belts (21 and 35) and an upper conveyor belt (34). In response, the applicant asserts that only the press section includes two belts not the entire conveyor belt. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the current claims do not require the entire length of the conveyor means to include an upper and lower conveyor belt. Plus, not even Figure 1 of the current application includes an upper and lower conveyor belt along the entire length of the conveyor means. Rather, Figure 1 of the current application shows a conveyor substantially identical to the conveyor of Pardo wherein a front area of the conveyor means includes only a lower conveyor belt and then the rear area of the conveyor means includes both a lower and upper conveyor belt. Plus, Pardo clearly teaches that a two belt conveyor is known (see press (33) of Pardo) and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the conveyor of Pardo with any desired conveyor belt configuration, such as claimed based on the conveying method desired.
The applicant also asserts that Pardo fails to teach or suggest a hot section wherein the powder is heated and compressed because the compression press rollers (40) of Pardo are after the heating zone (38). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the combination of the heating zone (38) and the press rollers (40) may be considered the claimed hot section. Plus, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights