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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 10-11, 13-15, 19-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patrick (PG Pub. 2003/0074879) or in the alternative as under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (PG Pub. 2003/0074879).
Regarding claims 1-2, 14, 21-22, 24 and 26, Patrick teaches a co-filament comprising a first filament (20) and a second filament (22) wherein the first filament and the second filament are physically and/or chemically connected (twisting is taught and filaments 20 and 22 are taught to be connected by alignment) to each other to form a co-filament [0010, 0041, 0045 and Fig. 1]. The first filament consists of an inorganic substance (glass) and has a Tg in the claimed range as fiberglass is taught and the first filament has a glass transition greater than the melting temperature of second filament. The second filament is made from a metallic material solidified onto the first filament and a contact area between the first filament and the second filament greater than or equal to 5% (also greater than 20%)of a circumference of the first filament as the first and second filament are taught as being completely touching along parallel lines or twisted together. In the alternative, Patrick teaches melting of the second filament and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to melt ensuring the contact area percentage was in the claimed range in order to improve strength and bonding and arrive at the claimed invention. The second filament also encloses at least a portion of the first filament as the second filament is melted and therefore the second filament is at least partially coated to the first filament via melting to form the co-filament [claim 46].
Regarding claim 3, Patrick teaches the first filament is glass fiber which is made from metal oxides and possesses the claimed bound oxygen content inherently since having an bound oxygen content in glass fiber lower than the claimed range would not form a fiber and further the typical bound oxygen content of glass fibers is 40% or more. Patrick is silent regarding the claimed silicon dioxide fraction percent. However, since most commercial glass fibers contain greater than 45 mass% silicone dioxide fraction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed silicon dioxide fraction percent and further it would have been obvious to use the claimed amount of silicon dioxide fraction since silicon dioxide is the primary network former for glass because it provides strength and therefore would be used in the claimed amount to improve fiber strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Patrick teaches the first filament is glass fiber which is made from silicon dioxide as a main ingredient and typically ranges from 46% or more and glass fiber with out at least 45% would have adequate strength and therefore, the claimed silicon dioxide amount is inherent to the glass fiber of Patrick.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Patrick is silent regarding the claimed transverse extension of the first filament and of the cofilament. However, given Patrick teach such similar filament mads of such similar material as glass, the claimed property of extension of the first filament is inherent to the filament of Patrick.
Regarding claim 15, Patrick teach the fibers with denier of 50-5000 for the first and second filament can be aligned as in the embodiment shown in Figure 5 of the present specification which teaches a small contact region and therefore Patrick teaches the claimed contact area between the first and second filament.
Regarding claim 11, Although Patrick does not disclose the claimed method of connecting, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method and given that Patrick meets the requirements of the claimed cofilament, Patrick clearly meet the requirements of present claims cofilament.
Regarding claim 19, the co-filament is configured to conduct electrical currents since it’s made of aluminum and such similar materials.
Regarding claim 20, Patrick is silent regarding the claimed method. Although, Patrick does not disclose the claimed method, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe,777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method and given that Patrick meets the requirements of the claimed co-filament, Patrick clearly meet the requirements of present claims co-filament.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-9, 12, 16-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (PG Pub. 2003/0074879).
Regarding claim 5, Patrick teaches glass fiber, but is silent regarding the aluminum oxide content. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose E-glass or S-glass which has the claimed aluminum oxide glass content or to arrive at the claimed aluminum oxide content in order to affect the strength, glass temperature, chemical durability or reduce cost as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Patrick teaches glass fiber, but is silent regarding the boron trioxide amount. However, it is known in the art to adjust the amount of boron trioxide in order to affect properties such as melting temp, electrical insulation, improve strength and increase glass transition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed boron trioxide amount in order to adjust the amount of boron trioxide in order to affect properties such as melting temp, electrical insulation, improve strength and increase glass transition and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Patrick is silent regarding the glass fiber being basalt. However, given the limited number of types of glass fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at basalt.
Regarding claims 8-9, Patrick teaches the second filament is composed of aluminum and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 100% aluminum and arrive at the claimed invention.
Although Patrick does not disclose the claimed method of connecting, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method and given that Patrick meets the requirements of the claimed cofilament, Patrick clearly meet the requirements of present claims cofilament.
Regarding claim 12 and 23, Patrick teaches the metal can be steel, stainless steel, copper, bronze, aluminum, etc with a denier at 50-5000 denier which with simple calculations shows the claimed wall thickness is taught.
Regarding claim 16-18, Patrick is silent regarding the claimed roving. However, Patrick is teach the yarn comprising the co-filament of claim 1and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a roving as a semi-finished intermediate to improve alignment and strength in the final product as is well known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (PG Pub. 2003/0074879) in view of Wu et al. (CN 107640913).
Regarding claims 3-7, Patrick teaches the co-filament as set forth above. In case it is found that Patrick does not teach the claimed compositional content of the inorganic fiber, Wu et al. teaches basalt fiber with a silane coating that possesses the claimed bound oxygen content (basalt fiber contains about 45% bound oxygen content), has silicon dioxide fraction claimed (possesses 45% or more in basalt), aluminum oxide content in the claimed range (basalt fiber has 12-20% aluminum oxide), boron trioxide content in the claimed range (0% in basalt fiber) because it has better mechanical property, tensile strength and elastic modulus than other glass fibers and to improve mechanical property and surface roughness and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the basalt fiber of Wu et al. in Patrick in order to mechanical property, tensile strength, elastic modulus, mechanical property and surface roughness and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
`Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Patrick does not teach the second filament is melted. Patrick plainly teaches melting the second filament. Claim 46 states “…at least one of the longitudinal filaments or stretch-broken fibers of said core has been melted.”. Therefore Patrick teaches melting of the second filament. Since Patrick does teach the forming (melting) of the filament, the transverse extension is inherent as stated. Applicant argues dependent claims 5-8 and 12. As set forth in the rejection, such claims are obvious over the cited art. Basalt fibers commonly have the claimed content and ranges of 3, 5 and 7. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789