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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 09/12/2025. Currently claims 1, and 3-20 are pending; with claims 14-19 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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, 3-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Carmien et al. (US Patent Number 5,421,931), hereafter, referred to as “Carmien”, in view of Jones et al. ((US Patent Number 4,880,584), hereafter, referred to as “Jones”.
Regarding claim 1, Carmien teaches a process of modifying a surface of a composite material base unit (30) (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48), the process comprising:
a. providing the composite material base unit (30) (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
b. pressing at least one impression module (54) of a modifying unit (40, 52) on the surface of the composite material base unit to form at least one surface geometry (50) on the surface (Figs. 5, 6; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
c. optionally heating the surface of the composite material base unit by a heating means (42) before pressing, during pressing, after pressing, or combinations thereof (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
wherein the composite material base unit (30) comprises a resilient material (according to the description (Chapter "resilient material" of the present application a resilient material is any composite material; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48) (a fiber-resin jacket),
wherein the impression module (40, 52) includes at least one protrusion (54), and/or at least one depression configured to form the surface geometry on the surface (Figs. 5, 6; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48).
Carmien teaches that the composite base material unit (30) is a fiber-resin jacket, but fails to explicitly teach that the composite base material unit comprises of thermoplastic composite. However, Jones teaches a fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin matrix composite (title). Jones also teaches the use of polyimide polymer (thermoplastic material) composites having a combination of enhanced thermal and mechanical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Jones, and combine the use a composite base material unit (30), which is a fiber-resin jacket comprising of thermoplastic composite material, because that would provide enhanced thermal and mechanical properties. Since both the reference deal with fiber reinforced composite material, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claims 3-5, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the composite material base unit is modified to form a tool handle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the property of the final article will depend on the processing parameters of the method. Therefore, the processing parameters would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the pressure exerted by the at least one impression module of the modifying unit on the surface of the composite material base unit is in a range of 0.1 Pa to 100 G Pa (as claimed in claim 3); and the surface of the composite material base unit is pressed by the at least one impression module of the modifying unit for a period of 1 second to 24 hrs (as claimed in claim 4); and that the heating provides a temperature of 30° C. to 600° C (as claimed in claim 5); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the modifying unit comprises at least one wheel with a tread defined by the at least one impression module, wherein the at least one wheel is configured to rotate and press the impression module on the surface of the composite material base unit; by teaching in Fig. 6, an external mold member (52; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48).
Regarding claim 7, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the modifying unit comprises at least one die; by teaching in Fig 5, external mold member (52, an upper and lower die; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48).
Regarding claim 8, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process for interlocking the surface of composite material base unit, the process comprising:
a. modifying the surface of the composite material base unit by the process of (rejection of process of claim 1) forming at least one surface geometry (50) on the surface;
b. over-molding the surface with at least one surface geometry of the composite material base unit with an injection molded material (20, 22) (Fig. 2; column 6, line 49 - column 7, line 22) and
wherein the surface geometry of the composite material base unit mechanically interlocks the composite material base unit with the injection molded material (column 6, line 49 - column 7, line 22; column 5, line 18 - line 43).
But the references fail to explicitly teach the step of curing the injection molded material to form the interlocked based unit. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, based on the general knowledge of the field of application, that the injection molded polymer material would be cured after the deposition resulting in an improvement of the strength of composites. Additionally, the claimed curing step is an optional step only.
Regarding claim 9, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the composite material base unit includes the resilient material, without the covering material, or a resilient material partially covered with the covering material or a resilient material completely covered by the covering material, or only the covering material; by teaching the feature in Figs. 1, and 6 (column 6, line 49 - column 7, line 22).
Regarding claim 10, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the injection molded material includes thermoplastic composite, polyamides, copolyamides, aromatic polyamides, a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), or any combination thereof; by teaching to use nylon (polyamide) material (column 7, line 14).
Regarding claim 11, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the injection molded material farther includes additive comprising glass fibre; by teaching to use glass-filled nylon material (column 7, line 14).
Regarding claims 12-13, Carmien, in view of Jones teaches a process, wherein the composite material base unit is modified to form a tool handle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the property of the final article will depend on the processing parameters of the method. Therefore, the processing parameters would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining a curing time for the injection molded material is in a range of 0 mins to 24 hrs (as claimed in claim 12), and that the interlock formed by the at least one surface geometry with the injection molded material is associated with a pull-out force in a range of 1000.0 N to 40,000.0 N (as claimed in claim 13); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20, Carmien teaches a process of modifying a surface of a composite material base unit (30) (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48), the process comprising:
a. providing the composite material base unit (30) (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
b. pressing at least one impression module (54) of a modifying unit (40, 52) on the surface of the composite material base unit to form at least one surface geometry (50) on the surface (Figs. 5, 6; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
c. optionally heating the surface of the composite material base unit by a heating means (42) before pressing, during pressing, after pressing, or combinations thereof (Fig. 5; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48);
wherein the composite material base unit (30) comprises a resilient material (according to the description (Chapter "resilient material" of the present application a resilient material is any composite material; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48) (a fiber-resin jacket),
wherein the impression module (40, 52) includes at least one protrusion (54), and/or at least one depression configured to form the surface geometry on the surface (Figs. 5, 6; column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 48).
Carmien teaches that the composite base material unit (30) is a fiber-resin jacket, but fails to explicitly teach that the composite base material unit comprises of thermoplastic composite. However, Jones teaches a fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin matrix composite (title). Jones also teaches the use of polyimide polymer (thermoplastic material) composites having a combination of enhanced thermal and mechanical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Jones, and combine the use a composite base material unit (30), which is a fiber-resin jacket comprising of thermoplastic composite material, because that would provide enhanced thermal and mechanical properties. Since both the reference deal with fiber reinforced composite material, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination. Carmien also teaches that this process comprising utilizing the composite material base unit forms an article of construction (Fig. 1) comprising a reinforcement bar.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the independent claim, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained. However, the 112 rejection of claim 20 is hereby withdrawn based on the amendment of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights