CTNF 18/292,805 CTNF 74647 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 15-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the present instance, claim 15 (claim 16 depends from 15) recites the broad recitation between 4 and 36, and the claim also recites 9 to 18 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 22 depends from itself, setting up infinite possible alternative universes and making the scope of the claim unclear. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 22 will be treated as if dependent from claim 21. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-14 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0277447 to Rocher (Rocher) . With regard to claim 1, Rocher discloses a tube (Rocher, title, abstract) comprising: - at least one cylindrical element made of a pultruded fibrous material impregnated with a thermoplastic matrix (15, figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0024 and 0026 describing carbon fibers embedded in a thermoplastic matrix) , - at least one additional fibrous reinforcement (9, figs. 4-5, paragraph 0024) , partially or completely surrounding the cylindrical element(s), the fibers contained in the additional fibrous reinforcement being positioned along an axis different from the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical element (paragraph 0024) , the total content of fibers of the tube being of between 40% and 70% by volume, with respect to the volumes of the matrix and of the fibers contained in the tube (not disclosed) . It should be noted that applicant provides no criticality for the claimed range of 40 to 70% fibers by volume in the tube as noted in paragraph 0045 as applicant acknowledges ranges of 45-70, 50-70, 50-60 and finally 54-60% by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try various configurations of the layers, including having a total fiber content of 40-70% by volume, in order to test the device for suitability in the field of its intended use. With regard to claim 2, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the additional fibrous reinforcement is chosen from dry continuous fibers, a fibrous material based on continuous fibers impregnated with a thermoplastic matrix (paragraph 0024) , and their mixture. With regard to claim 3, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the additional fibrous reinforcement comprises fibers positioned at an angle of between +/-10° and +/-89° with respect to the axis of the cylindrical element (paragraph 0024 “substantially perpendicular”) . With regard to claim 4, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein a portion of the fibers included in the material of the cylindrical element is positioned in the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical element (shown in fig. 4 and described in paragraph 0024) . With regard to claim 7, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 2 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the thermoplastic matrix of the cylindrical element is completely or partially miscible with the thermoplastic matrix of the additional fibrous reinforcement (described in paragraph 0024 as fibers impregnated with a resin) . With regard to claim 8, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 2 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the thermoplastic matrix of the additional fibrous reinforcement exhibits a melting point of greater than 150°C and/or a glass transition temperature of greater than 80°C (paragraph 0013 noting the resins used to impregnate the fiber matrix is a thermoplastic resin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the resin of Rocher with a melting point of greater than 150°C and/or a transition temperature greater than 80°C, in order to provide a tube that can operate at temperatures of up to 75°C) . With regard to claim 9, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein it comprises, inside the cylindrical element, a second cylindrical element composed of one or more layers of thermoplastic resin (5, fig. 4, paragraph 0024) , not comprising fibers. With regard to claim 10, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the thermoplastic matrix predominantly contains a thermoplastic polymer or a blend of thermoplastic polymers (paragraph 0024) . With regard to claim 11, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 10 as set forth above, but does not discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from poly(aryl ether ketone)s (PAEKs), in particular poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK); poly(aryl ether ketone ketone)s (PAEKKs), in particular poly(ether ketone ketone) (PEKK); aromatic polyetherimides (PEIs); polyaryl sulfones, in particular polyphenylene sulfones (PPSUs); polyaryl sulfides, in particular polyphenylene sulfides (PPSs); polyamides (PAs), in particular semiaromatic polyamides (polyphthalamides) optionally modified by urea units; PEBAs, the M.p. of which is greater than 150°C; polyacrylates, in particular polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA); polyolefins, with the exclusion of polypropylene; polylactic acid (PLA); polyvinyl alcohol (PVA); fluoropolymers; in particular polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE); polyvinyl chloride (PVC); and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) polymer; and their blends. Rocher fails to disclose the material for the thermoplastic polymer as being PAEK, PEEK, PAEKK, PEKK, PEIs, PPSUs, PPSs, PAs, PEBAs PMMA, PLA, PVA, PVDF, PTFE, PCTFE, PVC or ABS polymers and blends, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try one of these materials as the resin of the matrix since these materials are commercially available to test for suitability. With regard to claims 12-14, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 10 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from polyamides, aliphatic polyamides, cycloaliphatic polyamides and semiaromatic polyamides (polyphthalamides), PEKK, PEI, and a blend of PEKK and of PEI, wherein the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from aliphatic polyamides, cycloaliphatic polyamides, and semiaromatic polyamides (polyphthalamides) wherein the thermoplastic polymer is chosen from polyamide 6 (PA6), polyamide 11 (PA11), polyamide 12 (PA12), polyamide 66 (PA66), polyamide 46 (PA46), polyamide 610 (PA610), polyamide 612 (PA612), polyamide 1010 (PA1010), polyamide 1012 (PA1012), polyamide 11/1010 (PA11/1010) and polyamide 12/1010 (PA12/1010), or a blend of these or a copolyamide of these. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try selections from these materials to test the design of the device of Rocher for suitability in the field of intended use since these materials are all commercially available. With regard to claim 17, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 10 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the fibrous material is chosen from glass fibers, carbon fibers (paragraph 0024) , basalt fibers, and basalt-based fibers. With regard to claim 18, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the content of fibers in said impregnated fibrous material is of from 45% to 70% by volume with respect to the volume of the impregnated fibrous material. It should be noted that applicant provides no criticality for the claimed range of 40 to 70% fibers by volume in the tube as noted in paragraph 0045 as applicant acknowledges ranges of 45-70, 50-70, 50-60 and finally 54-60% by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try various configurations of the layers, including having a total fiber content of 45-70% by volume, in order to test the device for suitability in the field of its intended use. With regard to claim 19, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the total content of fibers is of between 40% and 70% by volume, with respect to the sum of the volume of the matrix and of the fibers, preferably between 50% and 70% by volume. It should be noted that applicant provides no criticality for the claimed range of 40 to 70% fibers by volume in the tube as noted in paragraph 0045 as applicant acknowledges ranges of 45-70, 50-70, 50-60 and finally 54-60% by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try various configurations of the layers, including having a total fiber content of 50-70% by volume, in order to test the device for suitability in the field of its intended use. With regard to claim 20, Rocher discloses a process for the manufacture of the tube as defined in claim 1, but does not disclose the process comprising the following successive stages: a) pultrusion of the cylindrical element, b) deposition of the additional fibrous reinforcement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the fibers of the matrix as pultruded fibers drawn through a resin bath to create the second layer of the tube of Rocher, since pultrusion is a known manufacturing technique for creating fiber reinforced tubular layers. With regard to claim 21, Rocher discloses the process as claimed in claim 20 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the stage of deposition of the additional fibrous reinforcement is carried out by winding the tape of additional fibrous reinforcement around the cylindrical element (shown in figs. 4-5) . With regard to claim 22, Rocher discloses the process as claimed in claim 22 (for purposes of compact prosecution and in light of the 112 rejection above, this claim is being treated as if dependent from claim 21) as set forth above, and further discloses wherein said deposition is carried out under a certain mechanical stress so as to exert pressure on the cylindrical element (the application of the layers of reinforcement places the underlying inner plastic layer under a certain mechanical stress) . With regard to claim 23, Rocher discloses a method of using the tube as defined in claim 1 as set forth above, for forming structures (as shown in the figures of the Rocher, the method of creating the tube of claim 1 provides a structure that can be used to store hydrocarbons.) , reinforcements, vehicle chassis reinforcements, fishing rod elements, legs of movie camera or of cameras, photovoltaic panel supports, structures of camping elements, ski poles, pipes for the transportation of fluids . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0277447 to Rocher (Rocher) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0295046 to Levesque (Levesque) . With regard to claims 5 and 6, Rocher discloses the tube as claimed in claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein the additional fibrous reinforcement is chosen from a braid of dry fibers, a braid of fibrous tapes impregnated with thermoplastic resin, and their mixture, and wherein the fibers used to manufacture the pultruded fibrous material of the cylindrical element are a braid of dry fibers. Levesque discloses a composite material part of a pipe, comprising braided fibers for use in a tubular member (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Rocher with braided fibers as taught by Levesque, in order to provide a tube that is very light as taught by Levesque at paragraph 0007 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs 5828003, 4946721, 3282757, 2021/0283864, 2019/0277447 and 2012/0295046 disclose similar tubes reinforced with resin impregnated fiber layers having some but not all of the claimed features . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST. 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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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. /DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner Art Unit 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 2 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 3 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 4 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 5 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 6 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 7 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 8 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 9 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 10 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/292,805 Page 11 Art Unit: 3753
Prosecution Insights