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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-15, 18 and 19 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.
In claim 3, it is unclear whether the step of cutting or grinding the rope occurs before the extrusion step.
In claim 4, the length range defined by the confusing recitation “of greater than equal to 1” is not understood. Do Applicants intend “of greater than or equal to 1”?
In claim 5, it is unclear whether the “chopped or ground biological fibers” are further in addition to those making up the rope.
In claim 6, there is no express antecedent basis for either a rope or biological fiber comprising “cellulose” on its surface.
In claims 6-14, it is unclear whether the treatment steps occur before the extrusion step.
In claim 8, there is no express antecedent basis for either a rope or biological fiber comprising “hydroxyl functional groups” on its surface.
In claim 11, there is no express antecedent basis for “said synthetic polymer”.
In claims 12-14, there is no express antecedent basis for “said treating”.
In claim 15, it is unclear whether the step of mixing the compatibilizer occurs before or during the extrusion step.
In claim 18, there is no express antecedent basis for “said compatibilizer”.
In claim 19, the recitations of the broad “synthetic fiber” and the narrower “glass fiber” is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by KR 20190075699 A (Yoon) abstract and machine translation.
Yoon discloses a method of producing a polymer composite comprising extruding (meets Applicants’ extruding step) (i) a rope-like reinforcement material comprising a natural fiber (meets Applicants’ rope comprising a biological fiber) and (ii) a resin composition comprising a polymer resin, an elastomer and a compatibilizer (meets Applicants’ binder component) (e.g., abstract , figures, examples, claims).
As to claim 1, Yoon expressly sets forth (claim 12, FIG. 2, etc.) an extrusion process comprising coating a rope-like reinforcement material comprising a natural fiber (meets Applicants’ rope comprising a biological fiber) with a resin composition comprising a polymer resin, an elastomer and a compatibilizer (meets Applicants’ binder component).
As to claim 2, Yoon discloses [0009] the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material is composed of ply-twisted yarn, i.e., a yarn that has been twisted.
As to claims 3 and 5, Yoon discloses cutting (i.e., chopping) the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material (e.g., Table 1).
As to claim 4, Yoon discloses [0059] the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material has a diameter of from 1 mm to 5 mm. It would be expected that said rope-like reinforcement material would necessarily have a length at least greater than 1 mm, meets presently claimed length of greater than or equal to 1 µm.
As to claims 6-8, Yoon discloses (claim 1) removing lignin and hemicellulose from the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material, which inherently exposes more cellulose (and density of hydroxyl groups) on its surface and increases its adhesion with the polymer composition.
As to claim 9, Yoon discloses heat treating the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material with removal of lignin and hemicellulose, which would necessarily engender increased dispersion of said natural rope-like reinforcement material in the composite.
As to claims 10 and 18, Yoon discloses using maleated compatibilizers, which would inherently form covalent bonds, i.e., via acetylation, with the surface hydroxyl groups of the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material. In this regard, the surface of natural fibers composed of cellulose typically contain surface hydroxyl groups.
As to claim 12, Yoon’s process is conducted anhydrously.
As to claim 14, Yoon discloses heat treating the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material.
As to claims 15-17, Yoon discloses [0061] using a compatibilizer to improve the interfacial bonding force between the reinforcing material and the resin composition.
As to claim 20, Yoon discloses pelletized natural fiber composites (FIG. 6).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 201900756699 A (Yoon) described hereinabove.
As to claim 19, Yoon discloses [0061], and renders obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, the further inclusion of inorganic fillers for their expected additive effect.
Claims 8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 201900756699 A (Yoon) described hereinabove in view of US 2012/0046394 (Lu).
As to claims 8 and 13, Lu, directed to similar-such composites, discloses (e.g., [0047]) various physical and chemical processes for pretreating natural fibers, such as an alkalization process so as to increase the hydroxyl groups on the fiber surface to provide more active hydroxyl groups for fiber/matrix interface bonding [0046]. Thus, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to pretreat the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material disclosed by Yoon with an alkalization process to increase the bonding between the fiber and polymer.
As to claim 11, Yoon does not expressly disclose treating the surface of the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material with organosilane groups. Lu, directed to similar-such composites, discloses (e.g., [0047]) functionalizing the natural fiber with silane groups increases the fiber/matrix interface bonding. Thus, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to pretreat the natural fiber rope-like reinforcement material disclosed by Yoon with an organosilane coupling agent to increase the bonding between the fiber and polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights