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 Sept. 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 16-21 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heessels et al. (WO2019/122317).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 16-21, Heessels discloses that, a process for the production of a glass fiber reinforced polymer tape (ABSTRACT), the process comprising:
a) unwinding from a package of at least one continuous glass multifilament strand (page 17, line 10);
b) applying an impregnating agent to the continuous glass multifilament strands to form the impregnated continuous multifilament strands (ABSTRACT, lines 3-4 (i.e., an impregnated continuous multifilament strand comprising at least one continuous glass multifilament strand (related to claim 2)); page 17, lines 11-14),
c) applying a sheath of a thermoplastic polymer around said multifilament strand to form a sheathed continuous multifilament strand (page 17, lines 15-17), wherein:
- wherein the tex number of the glass multifilament strand is in the range from 568 to 980 (page 5, lines 15-19 (e.g., 500 to 10000 grams per 1000 meters (line 19))) (overlapping the claimed range of 568 to 980 or 568 to 856 or 585 to 980 or 585 to 856 or 585 to 750 or 600 to 980 or 600 to 856 or 600 to 750 (related to claims 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21)), and
- the amount of the at least one continuous glass multifilament strand in the composition is from 55 to 70 wt% on the basis of the total weight of the tape (ABSTRACT, line 1 and lines 10-11 (i.e., the amount of impregnated continuous multifilament strand is in the range of 10 to 70 wt% based on the sheathed continuous multifilament strands)) (overlapping the claimed range of 55 to 70 wt%),
d) providing the plurality of sheathed continuous multifilament strands obtained in step c) (ABSTRACT, lines 1-2; page 16, line 10),
e) placing the plurality of sheathed continuous multifilament strands in parallel alignment in the longitudinal direction (ABSTRACT, lines 2-4; page 16, lines 11-12),
f) grouping the plurality of sheathed continuous multifilament strands, wherein steps e) and f) are performed such that the sheathed continuous multifilament strand can be consolidated (page 16, lines 13-15) and
g) subsequently consolidating the plurality of sheathed continuous multifilament strands to form a tape (page 16, lines 16-17).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Heessels overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Heessels discloses that, the propylene-based matrix consists of a propylene homopolymer (page 11, line 34). The melt flow index (MFI) of the propylene-based matrix may be in the range of for example 0.3 to 200 dg/min as measured according to ISO1133 (2.16 kg/230 C) (page 12, lines 11-13) (overlapping the claimed range of 20 to 83 dg/min).
Regarding claims 7, 8, Heessels discloses that, the length of the glass filaments is in principle not limited as it is substantially equal to the length of the sheathed continuous multifilament strand. For practical reasons of being able to handle the tape however, it may be necessary to cut the sheathed continuous multifilament strand into a shorter strand (page 5, lines 25-29) (related to claims 7, 8).
Regarding claims 9, 10, Heessels discloses that, throughout the circumference of cylinder, a good alignment was found to improve the side adhesion of neighboring strands (page 19, lines 21-23). The cylinder was then clamped or taped from the ends to prevent the strands from falling of the cylinder. The cylinder was then placed in an oven. After cooling the joined strands were cut from the cylinder to obtain a flat sheet of the tape (page 19, lines 26-33). Heessels discloses that, the obtained flat sheets of the tape were consolidated using a double belt press machine. … The gap between the belts was set such that the thickness of the tapes was reduced to an average of 2.0 mm. The temperature of the double belt press machine was set to 120 C for POE and to 180 C for PP (page 20, lines 1-7) (related to claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heessels et al. (WO2019/122317) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tufano et al. (US 2017/0321021).
Regarding claim 6, Heessels does not explicitly disclose that the process runs at a line speed of at least 100 m/min. In the same field of endeavor, long glass fiber compositions, Tufano discloses that, a process for the manufacture of a long glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition at a line speed of at least 6.7 m/s (or 402 m/min. (overlapping the claimed range of at least 100 m/min.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heessels to incorporate the teachings of Tufano to provide that the process runs at a line speed of at least 100 m/min. Doing so would be possible to achieve a cost-effective manner to produce glass fiber reinforced polypropylene compositions at very high speed, as recognized by Tufano ([0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) that, in the teachings of the reference Heessels, there is nothing that would suggest to one of skill in the art to make modifications that would render claim 1 obvious, it is not persuasive.
Specifically, Heessels discloses that, the tex number of the glass multifilament strand is, e.g., 500 to 10000 grams per 1000 meters (page 5, lines 15-19) which are overlapping the claimed ranges of 568 to 980 or 568 to 856 or 585 to 980 or 585 to 856 or 585 to 750 or 600 to 980 or 600 to 856 or 600 to 750 in related to claims 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Heessels overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights