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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-3 and 9-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-8 maintain rejected.
In view of the amendment, filed on 04/28/2026, the following new grounds of the rejections are necessitated:
New Grounds of the Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “, wherein the only fibers in the preform are the plant fibers or strands” which was not described in the specification, and so, the claimed subject matter fails to comply with the written description requirement. Thus, the newly added limitation is treated as “new matter”. It should be noted that negative limitations in the claims must have explicit support in the specification to satisfy the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 02/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2012/0046394) in view of Motsanos et al. (SE 532271), the following rejection relies on attached English Translation of Motsanos et al. (SE 532271).
As to claim 1, Lu et al. (US ‘394) disclose a method of preparing a plant-based fiber reinforced composite (¶ [0057]), comprising:
adhering a plurality of plant (hemp, ¶ [0008] – ¶ [0009]) fibers to form a preform, wherein the only fiber in the preform are the plant fibers (¶ [0057]: methods for vacuum assisted resin transfer molding include an infusion process and ¶ [0009]: improved interfacial adhesion between the hemp fiber and polymer matrix);
enclosing the preform within a vacuum bag having an inlet and outlet (¶ [0057]: cover, or bag, is placed over the top of the mold to form a vacuum-tight seal);
applying a vacuum pressure to the vacuum bag (¶ [0057]: the vacuum is applied within the mold);
passing a resin through the inlet to infuse the resin into the preform (¶ [0057]: drawing the resin into the mold to embed the fibers in resin); and
removing the vacuum bag to provide the plant-based fiber reinforced composite (¶ [0057]: the composite could be formed into any desired shape based on the form/shape of vacuum bag).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Lu et al. (US ‘394) is silent on disclosing that the fiber reinforced composite is a plant-based prepreg, as claimed in claim 1, and also is silent on disclosing that the resin is a liquid acrylic thermoplastic, as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) disclose a prepreg is a fiber that has been pre-impregnated with the matrix, for example epoxy resin, before it is used for lamination. This is a much cleaner process since the prepreg is already semi-cured. Compared to wet lamination, this means that the step of rolling wet epoxy resin on the fibers can be ruled out. The layers are laid against a tool or mold and vacuum bag molded and then heated in an oven or in autoclave to cure the composite. (see English Translation: ¶ [0009])
Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) further disclose the core (4) is made of hemp, preferably a hemp prepreg. By using hemp prepreg instead of dry hemp, it is possible to influence the final quality of the product as the amount of matrix is easily controllable. (see English Translation: ¶ [0035])
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A core (4) is made of prepreg hemp)]
PNG
media_image2.png
298
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) teach a method of producing a recyclable composite comprising the steps of: preparing the composite layer by layer, vacuum bag forming the prepared composite, wrap heat cable around the vacuum bag shaped composite, wrap, if applicable, excess heat cable around a frame, and connect the heat cable to a power source. (see claim 7) Further, Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) disclose it is also known to use natural fibers. Examples of such natural fibers are jute, hemp, sisal, flax and the like. (see English Translation: ¶ [0011])
Therefore, as to claim 1, Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) teach the fiber reinforced composite is a plant-based prepreg. (see English Translation: ¶ [0009] and ¶ [0011])
Further, as to claim 1, Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) disclose the resin is a liquid acrylic thermoplastic resin. (a thermoplastic or epoxy resin matrix or binder is used to bond the fibers. See English Translation: ¶ [0007].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to replace the used fiber reinforced composite, as suggested by Lu et al. (US ‘394), so to be a plant-based prepreg in order to improve the method so to be able to influence a final quality of the product as the amount of matrix is easily controllable, as suggested by Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271), ¶ [0035] of English Translation.
Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify a resin, as suggested by Lu et al. (US ‘394), to use a liquid thermoplastic resin in order to improve the binding properties of the resin so to be able to bind the plant fibers or strands in high temperatures and pressures for forming the composite, as suggested by Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271), ¶ [0007] of English Translation.
As to claim 1, the combined teachings of Lu et al. (US ‘394) in view of Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) fail to disclose the resin has a viscosity of 50-150 cps at 25 ̊C. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of Applicant’s invention to modify a viscosity of resin, as taught by combined teachings of Lu et al. (US ‘394) in view of Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271), so for the resin to have a viscosity of 50-150 cps at 25 ̊C in order to form hemp fiber-recycled high-density polyethylene (rHDPE) composites with the best mechanical properties with regards to tensile strength, elastic modulus, and flexural strength and modulus. see Lu et al. (US ‘394): ¶ [0008].
As to claim 4, Lu et al. (US ‘394) discloses the plant fibers or strands are obtained from wood (¶ [0005]), sisal (Table 1), hemp (¶ [0038]-[0039]), or jute (Table 1).
As to claim 5, Lu et al. (US ‘394) teach the plant strands have an average thickness of 0.2 to 0.7 mm. (¶ [0081]: The average density of Hemp fiber … with a typical diameter of 22.5 .mu.m which is equal to 0.225 mm that falls within the required range in claim 5.
As to claim 6, Lu et al. (US ‘394) in view of Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) fail to disclose the plant-based prepreg has an average thickness of 1-12 mm. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of Applicant’s invention to modify a plant-based prepreg size, as taught by combined teachings of Lu et al. (US ‘394) in view of Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271), so for the plant-based prepreg to have an average thickness of 1-12 mm in order to increase in the maximum flexural strength of the plant-based prepreg. see Lu et al. (US ‘394): ¶ [0098].
As to claim 7, Lu et al. (US ‘394) disclose placing a resin flow media layer (Figure 15: peel ply and/or resin distribution fabric layer) on an upper surface of the preform before the enclosing step and removing the resin flow media layer after removing the vacuum bag. (¶ [0058], ¶ [0062], and Fig. 15)
As to claim 8, Lu et al. (US ‘394) disclose the plurality of plant fibers are adhered and compressed to form the preform. (¶ [0057]: methods for vacuum assisted resin transfer molding include an infusion process and ¶ [0009]: improved interfacial adhesion between the hemp fiber and polymer matrix. ¶ [0084]: a compression molding technique using the Carver hydraulic press was used to manufacture the hemp fiber composites with the rHDPE films using a fabricated mold)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 04/28/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Lu is not making a prepreg (like the claimed invention where prepregs can then be used to make something else)” (see remarks: page 4, 6th paragraph), arguments were fully considered but are not found persuasive. It should be noted that the rejection introduces the prior art of Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) and Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) teach the fiber reinforced composite is a plant-based prepreg. (see English Translation: ¶ [0009] and ¶ [0011]) this fully cures the deficiency of the prior art of Lu, and therefore, the prior art rejection is still valid and applicable.
Further, in response to applicant’s arguments that “Motsanos does not even use a thermoplastic”, (see remarks: page 5, 2nd paragraph) arguments were fully considered but are not found persuasive because Motsanos, in paragraph [0007], clearly discloses “a thermoplastic or epoxy resin matrix or binder is used to bond the fibers” which the prior art clearly discloses the resin is a liquid thermoplastic resin.
Moreover, in response to applicant’s arguments that the references do not disclose “the claimed invention requires that the only fibers in the pre-form are the plant fibers or strands”. (see remarks: page 5, 3rd paragraph), arguments were fully considered but are not found persuasive because Lu et al. (US ‘394) disclose the only fiber in the preform are the plant fibers, where in paragraph [0009], it recites “improved interfacial adhesion between the hemp fiber and polymer matrix”.
Therefore, claims maintain rejected under above applied prior art rejections.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moselage, III (US 2014/0119813) disclose a method of fabricating a fiber reinforced composite part, comprising: assembling a fiber preform reinforcement; impregnating at least one portion of the fiber preform reinforcement with a gel; infusing the fiber preform reinforcement with resin; using the gel to prevent infusion of the portion of a fiber preform reinforcement with resin; and exposing fibers in the portion of the fiber preform reinforcement by removing the gel. See claim 30.
Burpo et al. (US 2004/0256053) disclose a method for forming complexly shaped composite laminate assemblies. A pair of dry fiber preforms are placed on a tool with a thin film adhesive layer therebetween. A vacuum bag encloses the preforms and the adhesive layer. The preforms are heated to a temperature sufficient to cause the adhesive to become viscous and to wet several plys of each of the preforms. The preforms are then allowed to cool slightly before resin is infused via a vacuum source through each of the preforms to thoroughly wet each of the preforms. The resulting joint formed at the bond line of the two preforms is stronger than what would be formed simply by adhering two otherwise completely formed preforms together because the dry fiber preforms, in connection with the heating of the preforms, allow wetting of several plys of each of the preforms at the joint area, rather than just the surface ply of each preform. See abstract.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights