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 claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “this assertion (the rationale provided in the previous email) does not appear to square with language in Claim 1 “a plant-based prepreg… a plurality of plant fibers or strands” and Claim 9 “plant-based prepreg prepared by the method according to claim 1”. This is not found persuasive because for instance a plurality of fibers or strands that are made of silk or wool are made of organic material that still shows similar functionality as to plant-based fibers or strands but are not called plant-based fibers or strands. Therefore, the process, as claimed in claim 1, can be used to make another and materially different product, other than the product as claimed in claim 9; for instance, a prepreg product that is not necessary plant-based and is made of other organic material such as wool or silk strands. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are patentably independent or distinct from each other. Moreover, the claimed subject matter in claims 1, 10 vs claims 9, 17 are respectively independent and distinct from each other for the rationales provided in the previous office action.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 1-8 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 (¶ [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 thermoplastic, as claimed in claim 2.
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 2, Motsanos et al. (SE ‘271) disclose the resin is a liquid 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 3, 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)
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.
Correspondence Information
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
01/22/2026