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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 23-30 in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-17 and 23-30 in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-16 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arvidson et al., US 2014/0072758 in view of Tam et al., US 8,236,119.
The published patent application issued to Arvidson et al., teach a tape ply or multiple plies made from UHMEPE fibers (abstract and section 0029). Arvidson et al., exemplifies UHMWPE DYNEEMA® fibers (section 0029). Said fibers are known to have the claimed tenacity (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dyneema). Arvidson et al., teach that a tape ply is single ply of non-overlapping unidirectionally oriented fibers (section 0019). Arvidson et al., further teach that a single ply is monolithic structure that has been merged (i.e., consolidated with heat and pressure) (section 0021). Arvidson et al., US 2014/0072758 teach that using a binder is optional (sections 0045 and 0054). Since the fibers are unidirectionally oriented and are consolidated using heat and pressure (binder is optional), the Examiner is of the position that adjacent polymer fibers would fuse to one another over an abutting length.
Alternatively, Arvidson et al., does not specifically teach the claimed limitation of fusing the oriented fibers along the abutted lengths.
The patent issued to Tam et al., cited in Arvidson et al., a suitable process for forming teach a process for forming a tape ply made from the claimed UHMEPE (title and abstract). Said process includes compressing and heating multi-filament yarns made from UHMEPE (abstract and column 2, 1-60). Said multi-filament yarn is flattened using compression and heat (column 2, 55-60). The Examiner is of the position that such a process would cause the individual filaments in the multi-filament yarn to fuse along the abutting lengths. With regard to claims 35-38, individual filaments of the multi-filament yarns have the same lengths. As such, it is expected that the abutting lengths would overlap the claimed abutting lengths.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the form the fibrous tape ply of Arvidson et al., using the process cited by Tam et al.
With regard to claim 3, Arvidson et al., teach that a tape generally has a rectangle shape with a cross-sectional aspect ratio (width to thickness) of 50:1 (section 0022). Arvidson et al., teach forming an article with as many 20 plies cross-pled at angles ranging from 0-90° (section 0055). Arvidson et al., further teach forming a woven fabric from the fiber tape plies and can be woven in a plain weave wherein tapes are woven vertically and horizontally (section 0044). Such a plain weave would meet the claimed angles as recited in claim 12. Arvidson et al., exemplifies a fiber tape made from Spectra® fibers wherein the areal density is 50 gms (section 0069). With regard to the areal densities set forth in claims 15-16, the Examiner is of the position that depending on the number of plies used, the areal density can be varied as function of desired end use. For example an article having 20 plies could have an areal density of 1000 gms. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 6, the prior art of Arvidson et al., does not teach the claimed solvent limitations. The Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form fibers using conventionally known solvents and processes. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). With regard to the claimed transversal strength, Arvidson et al., does teach this property. However, it is reasonable to expect that the claimed transversal strength properties would be exhibited once the article of Arvidson et al., in view of Tam et al., is provided. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials such as the claimed UHMWPE and the use of like processes such as manufacturing fiber tapes (using the method of Tam et al) and woven fabric composites comprising said tapes which would result in the claimed features.
The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 17 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789