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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/30/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 4, 7-9, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Gruber (US 5160561).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US 5160561) in view of Binnersley et al. (US 4640861)
Gruber discloses a method as detailed in section 6 of Non-Final Rejection (NF) dated 12/19/24 and section 5 of Final Rejection (FR) dated 5/2/25.
Additionally, the examiner notes that because Gruber discloses the thermoplastic matrix material is the same as claimed by applicant (amorphous copolyimide polymer – see section 5 of FR), the physical properties, such as the glass transition temperature will be the same. MPEP 2112.
Gruber does not disclose the claimed thickness of band n deposited on the substrate.
Binnersley discloses that it known in the art to adjust the band thickness, and doing such effects the filament to polymer matrix ratio, as well as the cost (C2, L7-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the band n of Gruber that is deposited on the substrate to have a thickness less than or equal to 300 µm as such would have been achieved by performing routine experimentation to obtain the expected results as taught by Binnersley above
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US 5160561) and Binnersley, and in view of Briffaud et al (US 2015/0267050).
Gruber and Binnersley are discussed above and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. Gruber employed an amorphous polyamide thermoplastic for the resin matrix therein and not a semicrystalline thermoplastic polymer.
Briffaud et al taught that it was more desirable to utilize a semicrystalline polyamide as opposed to an amorphous polyamide when making a fiber reinforced composite as the semicrystalline polymer had advantages over the amorphous polymer material. Applicant is referred to paragraph [0011] of the reference. Additionally, the molecular weight of the semicrystalline polyamide was between 10,000 and 40,000, see paragraph [0060]. The reference additionally suggested that one would have desired to provide crystallinity to the matrix as it provided for superior enhanced mechanical properties and that crystallinity should be as high as possible while keeping the melting temperature around 270-280 degrees C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a semicrystalline polyamide matrix for the reinforcing filaments in Gruber and Binnersley as such had advantages as identified by Briffaud et al over the use of the amorphous polyamide in Gruber when filament winding to make a consolidated composite article therein.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US 5160561) and Binnersley in view of Smith et al (US 6230775).
Gruber and Binnersley are discussed above and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. There is no indication that the heating of the fibrous composite material was constant at the point of contact with the surface band previously applied. Smith taught that one would have heated the thermoplastic impregnated reinforcing material to above 500 degrees F (above 260 degrees C) and maintained the matrix material at that temperature from the impregnating zone to the mandrel and then even at the mandrel where the same was heated to maintain the temperature of the matrix constant throughout the entire process therein. Given that the reference to Gruber inputted heat in the winding operation therein, one would have expected that the matrix material would have been maintained at the constant temperature therein during winding and the reference to Smith et al evidenced that one would have heated the material during winding and maintained the temperature throughout the entire process therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to heat the thermoplastic impregnated composite material and maintained the same at a constant temperature during the winding of the same as suggested was desirable by Smith et al in the winding operation of Gruber and Binnersley when making a composite from fiber reinforced thermoplastic via a winding operation.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (US 5160561) in view of Gibson et al (US H1261).
Gruber and Binnersley are discussed above and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. While the reference included various heating means for the thermoplastic impregnated material during the winding operation, it did not expressly teach that one would have included a heating means which directed hot gas at the point of laydown of the filaments in the winding operation and additionally did not expressly suggest a heated pressing roller which further assisted in consolidation of the material therein. Gibson et al not only taught preheating the thermoplastic resin impregnated fiber material prior to the mandrel upon which it was wound but it also included a heater within the mandrel as well as a hot gas heater which was disposed to heat the material at the point of contact during the winding operation. One skilled in the art would have understood how to select a suitable heating means for ensuring that the materials was molten when wound in order to ensure good consolidation of the material in the winding operation therein and such would have included heating at the point of laydown as well as use of a heated compaction roller therein as suggested by Gibson et al in the system and arrangement of Gruber and Binnersley. One skilled in the art would have certainly been able to select from the various alternative heating means to achieve adequate heating of the material to ensure that the composite is adequately consolidated and of a low void content therein after the application operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/25 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the thickness are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection detailed above.
The applicant argues that Gruber discloses only coating of the filaments (fiber material) with the amorphous copolyimide and thus fails to meet the impregnation limitation. This argument is unpersuasive because Gruber clearly discloses coating AND impregnating. Examiner first notes that the impregnating requires coating said filaments. Second, Gruber expressly discloses impregnating in multiple locations – C1, L45 – C2, L15; C2, L54-66).
As to the glass transition temperature, the argument is not persuasive for the reasons detailed in the body of the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. Chang (US 4681911) appears to be the US patent referred to in Gruber (listed as US 4681411, incorrectly) for the copolyamide polymer in the operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746