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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 2-4, in the reply filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
As an initial matter, it is noted that the traversal is directed to the restriction between the inventions of Groups II and III. Group I is understood to be withdrawn without traverse.
The traversal is on the grounds that the identified inventions recited in claim 2 (Group II) and claim 5 (Group III) are not patentably distinct and are directed to a single general inventive concept. Further, it is argued that the claims of Groups II and III have been amended to incorporate the composition and that the restriction requirement mischaracterizes the Group III claims as an apparatus instead of a system such that the restriction is improper in view of the amendment. Further, it is argued that the method of claim 2 necessarily uses the system of claim 5 and that it follows the claims stand or fall together These arguments are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, it is noted that the application is filed under 35 USC 111(a) and not 35 USC 371. As such, arguments directed to unity of invention and a single general inventive concept are not applicable as that is not the standard for restriction in the current application. As to the argument that the claims are directed to a system, this argument is only persuasive as far as it properly goes. It is agreed that what would be an apparatus claim by itself can be presented in such a way that the materials utilized in the apparatus also are within the scope of the claim. In such a case, the claim is generally thought of as a system or, in some contexts, a kit. However, in the instant application this does not impact the propriety of the restriction requirement. For the material in such a claim to be limiting, the material must be listed as a positive limitation in the claim. In this case, for example in claim 5, the “wet fiber delivery component” must only be “configured to deliver strands of fiber impregnated with liquid resin made of methyl methacrylate, polymeric viscosity-promoting agent, nano clay, a nitro compound retarder, and an internal lubricant”. Properly understood, this recitation does not positively require such a material be present as it merely requires that the wet fiber delivery component is “configured” to deliver such a material. As such, the argument is not persuasive for this first reason. Further, should the material recited in claim 5 be presented as a positive limitation, the restriction is still proper in this case. The material recited in claim 5 does not require the compositional breakdown that the material in the Group II claims requires (e.g. 70-90% methyl methacrylate). Further still, should the exact same material be positively recited in the Group II and Group III inventions, the restriction would still remain proper because other differences between the inventions remain that make support the restriction requirement. Group II requires braided fibers while Group III does not. Group III requires both a low-temperature heater and at a high-temperature heater while Group II does not. Group III requires a control unit to control the temperature of each heater or the pulling rate of the wet fiber while Group II does not. Further, Group II requires “without and inhibitor” and “an inhibitor” while Group III does not. It follows based on these differences that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (e.g. utilize fibers that are not braided or fabrics). Further, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus (e.g. an apparatus that does not have both low and high temperature heaters or an apparatus that does not have the same claimed control unit). Further, the differences between the inventions of Groups II and III would create a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required as different search queries would be required and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention (e.g. a prior rejection that would be proper against claim 5 would not likely be applicable to claim 2) .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 3 and 4, “Claim 2” should be - - claim 2 - - . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4 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.
Claim 2 now recites “methyl methacrylate without an inhibitor” at line 4 and the presence of “an inhibitor” at line 5. In view of the arguments set forth with the amendment, the limiting effect of the recitations taken together is unclear. It is not clear whether the intention is to provide “an inhibitor” to a “methyl methacrylate” that does not have an inhibitor or whether the recitation of “an inhibitor” at line 5 was left in the claim by mistake or whether something else is intended. The amendment further removed the limitation of “removing said inhibitor” at line 6 and the instant specification seems to suggest that the invention is directed to “replacing” an inhibitor composition from the methyl methacrylate with “a nitro compound retarder”. In view of the amendment and the current language of claim 2, it is not clear how or if that happens. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Additionally, it is not clear whether the amounts 70-90%, 10-30%, and 0.1-10% recited in claim 2 are directed to weight or volume percentages. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further, claim 2 recites “said wet fiber” at line 15 and “said mold cavity” at line 16. These recitations lack antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further still, at line 18, claim 2 recites “applying…to said wet fibers polymerize and cooling”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear due to what appears to be missing words. It is not clear whether the intended recitation is - - applying…to said wet fibers to polymerize the thermoplastic liquid resin and cooling - - or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan et al. (US 2021/0403653) in view of Coover et al. (US 2,787,634), Bergman (US 6,339,177), and Ishida (US 5,294,461).
Regarding claim 2, Swan et al. teach a method for making composite structures made of thermoplastic nanocomposite/fiber-reinforced composite comprising forming a mixture of methyl methacrylate in an amount within or that overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0020], [0045], [0056]-[0060], [0137] and [0142] – 80 wt.% methyl methacrylate monomer), polymeric viscosity-promoting agent in an amount within or that overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0014], [0015], [0073], [0074], [0137] and [0142] – 20 wt.% PMMA), a nano clay in an amount that overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0084]) and an internal lubricant/plasticizer (paragraph [0080]); selecting a pultrusion system for pultruding the resin (paragraphs [0102] and [0105]); delivering a plurality of braided fibers to the molding system (Abstract; paragraphs [0015], [0039], [0063]-[0065] - bundle of braided fibers; paragraphs [0089]-[0091]); applying heat to said wet fibers to polymerize the resin and ultimately cooling said wet fibers to a cured, hardened composite (paragraphs [0049], [0089], [0098] and [0102]-[0105] – heating the resin in a pultrusion process).
As to the limitations directed to the methyl methacrylate itself not having an inhibitor, the mixture having an inhibitor, and mixing a nitro compound (an art recognized term directed to compounds containing one or more nitro (-NO2) functional groups) retarder into the mixture, Swan et al. teach the mixture can contain stabilizers (paragraph [0080]), but do not teach these materials are included or not included as claimed (see the section 112b rejection above as it is not clear what is actually intended or required regarding the inhibitor recitations at lines 4 and 5 of claim 2).
However, Coover et al. teach an inhibitor/retarder that is disclosed as being suitable for preventing/retarding autopolymerization of vinyl-type compounds, including methyl methacrylate (col. 1, lines 15-32; Example 2), wherein the inhibitor/retarder comprises an aromatic nitro compound (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, lines 32; Example 2) and Bergman teach that the amounts of retarder utilized is selected based on the amount of “true” inhibitor also found in the composition (Abstract; col. 5, lines 57-64; e.g. suggesting only the retarders or a blend of retarders and “true” inhibitors can be utilized, as needed).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Swan et al. with the teaching of Coover et al. and Bergman and to have included a nitro compound retarder, with or without an additional inhibitor, in the method of Swan et al., as suggested by Coover et al. and Bergman, for the purpose, as suggested by Coover et al. and Bergman, of utilizing a retarder that can stabilize the material for a sufficiently long period of time and that does not introduce an undesirable color to the material in a cost effective manner (Coover et al.: col. 2, lines 13-28; Bergman: col. 5, lines 57-65).
Additionally, while Swan et al. teach the process can be a pultrusion process (paragraphs [0102] and [0105]), Swan et al. provide no additional detailed information regarding the equipment utilized or operation of the pultrusion process. As such, Swan et al. do not explicitly teach the structure of the pultrusion system includes an injection die system, wherein said pultrusion injection die system includes a pultrusion injection die, a braid fiber delivery system, a liquid resin impregnation system, a puller configured to pull impregnated fibers through said pultrusion injection die, and a cutter configured to cutter said impregnated fiber when cured to a desired length, said pultrusion injection die includes a mold die and a plurality of heaters configured to apply heat to fibers impregnated with said thermoplastic liquid resin, that compresses and heats said wet fiber delivered thereto; or delivering the fibers to the mold cavity in said pultrusion injection die and applying pressure and heat as claimed, pulling said cured composite from said pultrusion injection die using said pullers, and cutting said cured composite into desired lengths using said cutter.
However, Ishida teaches an analogous method wherein the pultrusion system teaches and suggests the structure set forth in step c of the claim and teaches and suggests operation of the structure in the manner set forth in steps d-g (Abstract; Figure 2 (10) – corresponding with the fiber delivery system; (A), (B), (26) (35) (28) – corresponding with the liquid resin impregnation system; (17) – corresponding with the injection die system that shapes the composite and where the polymerization occurs; (20) – puller; (24) – cutter; col. 1, lines 9-20; col. 2, lines 58-col. 7, line 7; col. 4, lines 9-42; col. 5, lines 50-64; col. 7, lines 9-24; col. 8, lines 32-34).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Swan et al. and Ishida and to have utilized a pultrusion system as claimed in step c and to have operated the system as claimed steps d-g in the method of Swan et al., as suggested by Ishida, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively impregnating the reinforcing fiber materials to produce superior wetting and resulting high mechanical strength with an art recognized suitable pultrusion system (Ishida: col. 4, lines 35-64).
It is noted that Swan et al. is primarily focused on the in-situ polymerization of an analogous thermoplastic methacrylic resin with a fibrous material to form a composite material and makes clear that a conventional method, such as pultrusion, may be utilized. Swan et al. do not explicitly discuss the conventional and applicable pultrusion structures. Ishida more explicitly disclose that the claimed pultrusion structure and that the steps associated with operating the structure are known and conventional in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked for more explicit teaching to implement the general pultrusion teaching of Swan et al. This more explicit teaching is provided by Ishida. Taken together, each and every limitation set forth in the claims is reasonably taught or suggested by the prior art.
As to claim 3, Ishida teaches the liquid resin impregnation system reasonably includes a chamber/bath containing the liquid resin into which the fibers are passed to create wetted fibers (Figure 2 (28)). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 4, Ishida teaches the liquid resin impregnation system includes a resin tank/mixer containing the resin (Figure 2 (26)) which is fed to the bath/chamber to created wetted fibers. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Breitigam et al. (US 5,098,496), Mansfield et al. (US 2022/0388257), Ratcliffe et al. (US 2018/0066396), and Kusek (US 2004/0001941) disclose analogous pultrusion systems. Nedez (US 6,288,299), Diaz (US 4,547,619), and Dye (US 3,240,830) disclose that it is known to remove inhibitors from monomer compositions, as needed, prior to use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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 at 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 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742