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 Arguments
Amendments to the claims, filed on 4/27/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/8/15 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 9/8/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schauf et al (US 2003/0041553 A1) (Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 1, Schauf teaches structural members (e.g., crossarms for utility poles) comprising an outer shell (202) comprising a mixture (e.g., base material) of fiber reinforcement (e.g., fiber reinforced plastic fill material and chopped fibers) and a resin (e.g., polypropylene), wherein the resin is resistant to ultraviolet (UV) radiation (e.g., UV inhibitors), and wherein the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell such that UV-resistance provided by the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell (e.g., UV inhibitors mixed throughout the composition) (para 13-14, 44-45, fig 8). Schauf further teaches its structural members further comprise a foam core (e.g., expanding or closed-cell foam which is known to be adherent) (para 47, fig 9).
Therefore, Schauf would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a composite structure comprising an inner core comprising foam; and an outer shell surrounding the inner core, having an exterior surface and an interior surface integrally bonded to the inner core (e.g., the use of closed-cell or expanding foam which is known to be strongly adherent), and comprising a mixture of fiber reinforcement and a resin, wherein the resin is resistant to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and wherein the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell such that UV-resistance provided by the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell, and wherein the composite structure is comprised in a crossarm or a brace for a utility pole.
Regarding claim 3, Schauf teaches the base materials is mixed (i.e., the fiber reinforcement is impregnated by the resin) and also the use of fiber reinforced plastic (i.e., the fiber reinforcement is impregnated by the resin) (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 4 and the product of Schauf.
Regarding claim 13, Schauf teaches embodiments wherein the composite structure does not comprise a UV-resistant coating provided on the outer shell (para 13-14, 44-47, fig 8-9).
Regarding claim 15, Schauf teaches wherein the foam is a closed-cell foam (para 47).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schauf et al (US 2003/0041553 A1) (Embodiment 2).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Schauf teaches composite structure comprising: an inner core comprising foam (e.g., lower density foam based material); and an outer shell surrounding the inner core (e.g., higher density base material), having an exterior surface and an interior surface integrally bonded to the inner core, and comprising a mixture of fiber reinforcement (e.g., fiber reinforced plastic fill material and chopped fibers) and a resin (e.g., polypropylene), wherein the resin is resistant to ultraviolet (UV) radiation (e.g., UV inhibitors), and wherein the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell such that UV-resistance provided by the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell; wherein the composite structure is UV-resistant throughout the entire composite structure (figs 3-5, para 14, 33-34, 38).
Regarding claim 3, Schauf teaches the base materials is mixed (i.e., the fiber reinforcement is impregnated by the resin) and also the use of fiber reinforced plastic (i.e., the fiber reinforcement is impregnated by the resin) (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 4 and the product of Schauf.
Regarding claim 13, Schauf teaches embodiments wherein the composite structure does not comprise a UV-resistant coating provided on the outer shell (figs 3-5, para 14, 33-34, 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13-16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roth (US 2008/0098935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roth teaches a composite structure comprising an inner core (4) comprising foam (e.g. foamed synthetic resin); and an outer shell (12, 14) surrounding the inner core, having an exterior surface and an interior surface integrally bonded to the inner core, and comprising a mixture of fiber reinforcement (e.g., reinforcing layer (12) such as a fibrous mat and a web (14) such as a fabric) and a resin, wherein the resin is resistant to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and wherein the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell such that UV-resistance provided by the resin extends from the exterior surface of the outer shell to the interior surface of the outer shell (e.g., 100% permeation); wherein the inner core is integrally bonded to the outer shell (para 19, 21-22, 83, 84, 94, 137-140; fig 1).
Roth teaches its composite structural material as a replacement for synthetic wood in posts, joists, and beams, and gives a specific application of a telephone pole; and its composite structural material is that it is customizable to meet different specifications as dictated by safety administration standards (para 1, 254). Therefore, Roth would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention designing its composite structural material to comprise a crossarm or a brace for a utility pole; and customizing it to meet the necessary specifications as dictated by relevant safety administration standards.
Regarding claim 3, Roth teaches wherein the fiber reinforcement is impregnated by the resin (para 137-140).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 4 and the product of Roth.
Regarding claim 13, Roth teaches a specific embodiment wherein the composite structure does not comprise a UV-resistant coating provided on the outer shell (para 16, 84-85; fig 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Roth teaches a closed-cell polyurethane foam (para 23).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Roth suggests embodiments wherein the foam is a high-density foam, and wherein a density of the foam is at least about 5 pounds per cubic foot; and wherein the inner core has a compression strength of at least 300 pounds per square inch (para 28-30, 237, 246, 249).
Furthermore, Roth suggests the polyurethane foam core of instant claimed so it is deemed to possess a compression strength of at least 300 pounds per square inch. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Regarding claim 20, Roth teaches the outer shell is made from fiberglass and impregnated with polyurethane resin and the core is made from polyurethane foam (para 21-23, 95, 112, 125, 137). Polyurethane and fiberglass are naturally non-conductive; so, Roth would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the composite structure is non-conductive.
Regarding claim 21, Roth suggests species wherein the resin is fire-resistant (para 104, 149).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2022/0153911 A1).
Roth teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Roth further teaches the resin is a polyurethane resin (para 137); and its composite structural material as a replacement for synthetic wood in posts, joists, and beams, and gives a specific application of a telephone pole (para 1, 254).
Roth fails to suggest wherein the resin comprises an aliphatic polyurethane resin; and wherein the aliphatic polyurethane resin is a dicyclohexylmethane diisocyanate (HMIND)-terminated polyether prepolymer or an aliphatic isocyanate resin.
Chen teaches a polyurethane-polyisocyanurate composition for use in telegraph pole cross arms and telegraph poles (abstract); wherein its polyurethane-polyisocyanurate composition comprises an aliphatic polyurethane resin, e.g., an aliphatic polyisocyanate (para 13); and has a fast curing speed and exhibits superior mechanical properties (para 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to substitute the polyurethane-polyisocyanurate composition of Chen for the polyurethane resin of Roth, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Additional motivation is provided by using a polyurethane-polyisocyanurate composition that has a fast curing speed and exhibits superior mechanical properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Limerkens et al (US 8,067,476 B2).
Roth teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Roth further teaches the impregnating resin is UV resistant (para 139), so its outer shell would be UV resistant; and its core is made from a thermoplastic or polyurethane foam (para 22-23).
Roth fails to suggest wherein the composite structure is UV-resistant throughout the entire composite structure.
Limerkens teaches foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes that have very high tensile and tear strength, high flexibility at low temperatures, extremely good abrasion and scratch resistance, and stability against UV radiation (col 1, lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to substitute the foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes of Limerkens for the polyurethane foams or thermoplastic foams of Roth, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Additional motivation is provided by using foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes that have very high tensile and tear strength, high flexibility at low temperatures, extremely good abrasion and scratch resistance, and stability against UV radiation.
The combined structure and composition of Roth as modified by Limerkens would have an outer shell and core that is UV resistant, i.e., wherein the composite structure is UV-resistant throughout the entire composite structure.
Claims 22, 27, and 29-31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britt, Jr. (US 2016/0208510 A).
Roth teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Roth teaches its composite structural material as a replacement for synthetic wood in posts, joists, and beams, and gives a specific application of a telephone pole (para 1, 254) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the composite structure is comprised in a crossarm (i.e., elongate member) or a brace for a utility pole or the structural equivalent. Roth further teaches wherein the elongate member is rectangular; and wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the inner core comprises a straight portion, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (fig 1).
Roth fails to expressly suggest endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member; and wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member.
Britt, Jr. teaches a fiber-reinforced composite structure, such as a cross arm for use in the power industry; wherein the composite structure forms an elongate member, and wherein endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features (e.g., screws or adhesives) for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member; and wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (abstract, para 55, 68; figs 2a-6, 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the structural features of the composite materials of Britt, Jr., with the composite materials of Roth for a cross arm that is used in the power industry, i.e., combining prior art elements (composite material designs of Britt, Jr. and Roth) according to known methods (e.g, combination or incorporation of structures of similar composite materials) to yield predictable results (e.g., a cross arm that is used in the power industry).
Claims 14, 16, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schauf (Embodiment 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the Examiner takes official notice that high-density polyurethane expanding foam was known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select high-density polyurethane foam as the inner core foam, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that by adjusting the density of the polyurethane foam, its physical and/or mechanical properties could be optimized (e.g., weight, overall strength, etc.); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the density of the polyurethane foam to optimize its physical and/or mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 19-21, Schauf suggests structure and composition of the composite structure and the polyurethane foam core of instant claim; so the composite structure is deemed to be non-conductive and fire-resistant; and the polyurethane foam core is deemed to possess a compression strength of at least 300 pounds per square inch. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauf (Embodiment 1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Limerkens.
Schauf (E1) teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Roth further teaches the its base materials contains UV inhibitors (para 13-14), so its outer shell would be UV resistant; and its core is made from a foam (para 47-78).
Schauf (E1) fails to suggest wherein the composite structure is UV-resistant throughout the entire composite structure.
Limerkens teaches foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes that have very high tensile and tear strength, high flexibility at low temperatures, extremely good abrasion and scratch resistance, and stability against UV radiation (col 1, lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to substitute the foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes of Limerkens for the foams of Schauf (E1), since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Additional motivation is provided by using foamed thermoplastic polyurethanes that have very high tensile and tear strength, high flexibility at low temperatures, extremely good abrasion and scratch resistance, and stability against UV radiation.
The combined structure and composition of Schauf (E1) as modified by Limerkens would have an outer shell and core that is UV resistant, i.e., wherein the composite structure is UV-resistant throughout the entire composite structure.
Claims 22, 27, and 29-31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauf (Embodiment 1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britt, Jr.
Schauf (E1) teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Schauf further teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention embodiments wherein the composite structure forms an elongate member; wherein the elongate member is rectangular; wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the inner core comprises a straight portion, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member; wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (fig 7, 5).
Schauf (E1) fails to suggest wherein endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member.
Britt, Jr. teaches a fiber-reinforced composite structure, such as a cross arm for use in the power industry; wherein the composite structure forms an elongate member, and wherein endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features (e.g., screws or adhesives) for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member; and wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (abstract, para 55, 68; figs 2a-6, 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the structural features of the composite materials of Britt, Jr., with the composite materials of Schauf (E1) for a cross arm that is used in the power industry, i.e., combining prior art elements (composite material designs of Britt, Jr. and Schauf (E1)) according to known methods (e.g, combination or incorporation of structures of similar composite materials) to yield predictable results (e.g., a cross arm that is used in the power industry).
Claims 22, 27, and 29-31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauf (Embodiment 2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britt, Jr.
Schauf (E2) teaches the composite structure of claim 1. Schauf (E2) further teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention embodiments wherein the composite structure forms an elongate member; wherein the elongate member is rectangular; wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the inner core comprises a straight portion, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member; wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (fig 7, 5).
Schauf (E2) fails to suggest wherein endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member.
Britt, Jr. teaches a fiber-reinforced composite structure, such as a cross arm for use in the power industry; wherein the composite structure forms an elongate member, and wherein endcaps are secured to ends of the elongate member; wherein at least one of the endcaps comprises one or more retention features (e.g., screws or adhesives) for securing the at least one of the endcaps to one of the ends of the elongate member; and wherein at least one corner of a cross-section of the outer shell is curved, wherein the cross-section is taken perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis defined by the elongate member (abstract, para 55, 68; figs 2a-6, 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the structural features of the composite materials of Britt, Jr., with the composite materials of Schauf (E2) for a cross arm that is used in the power industry, i.e., combining prior art elements (composite material designs of Britt, Jr. and Schauf (E2)) according to known methods (e.g, combination or incorporation of structures of similar composite materials) to yield predictable results (e.g., a cross arm that is used in the power industry).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the composite structure described in Roth is incapable of withstanding loads that a crossarm experiences, e.g., Roth's composite structure is being used for a stringer a with maximum modulus of rupture described in Roth (7,900 psi) which is far, far lower than the maximum modulus of rupture of a crossarm. Therefore, the Roth structure is incapable of being used as a crossarm for a utility pole.
The Examiner concurs with the Applicant that the stringer embodiment of Roth is incapable of being used as a crossarm for a utility pole.
However, Roth teaches its composite structural material as a replacement for synthetic wood in posts, joists, and beams, and gives a specific application of a telephone pole; and its composite structural material is that it is customizable to meet different specifications as dictated by safety administration standards (para 1, 254). Therefore, Roth would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention designing its composite structural material to comprise a crossarm or a brace for a utility pole; and customizing it to meet the necessary specifications as dictated by relevant safety administration standards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights