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 .
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the gradient" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which does not recite a gradient.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0129395 in view of Ender, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0168324.
Sjostedt discloses a preform comprising thermoplastic filament combined with high strength fibers. The structure can be formed into braids. See abstract. The carbon filaments correspond to the claimed reinforcement filament in claim 1. See abstract. The amount of reinforcing filaments relative to the volume of the preform would necessarily have a relationship with the strength, bending modulus, bending strength and tensile modulus of the preform. The structure can be braided which meets the limitations of claim 4. See abstract and paragraph 0026. The reinforcing filaments can be carbon which meets the limitations of claim 6. See abstract and paragraphs 0025-0026. The thermoplastic filaments can be any suitable polymer. See paragraph 0053. Sjostedt teaches wrapping the structure around a spool at paragraph 0011.
Sjostedt differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose employing a majority of natural fibers as claimed.
However, Ender discloses that in addition to glass and ceramic fibers, hemp fibers and other natural fibers can also be used to form fiber preforms. See paragraph 0018.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed hemp and/or other natural fibers as the reinforcing fibers in Sjostedt, in view of the teaching of Ender of their art recognized suitability for this intended purpose and to have selected the relative amounts of each type of fiber in order to provide a preform having the desired properties at the most economical price.
Claim(s) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0129395 in view of Ender as set forth above, and further in view of La Forest et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0151712.
Sjostedt discloses a preform as set forth above.
Sjostedt differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose a gradient configuration of the thermoplastic filaments.
However, La Forest teaches forming a preform material wherein each layer or portion can be selectively tailored to form a structure with more or less fibers and/or resin to provided particular properties to the structure. For example, La Forest teaches forming a structuring a higher resin content and few fibers at the center of the preform and more fibers at the outer portions of the preform. See paragraph 0020.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a gradient in the thermoplastic fiber distribution in order to provide different properties to different parts of the preform structure as taught by La Forest.
With regard to the filament pairs, the instant specification states that the filament pairs can include a tubular filament with a reinforcing filament within the tube, and that both the tubular filament and the reinforcing filament can be the same. See paragraphs 0045-0046. A structure with a tube and a filler of the same material would reasonably be expected to be the same as a structure of a single fiber of the same material as made up the tube and filler, assuming the same denier for both the single fiber and the tubular fiber plus filler. Therefore, once the gradient disclosed by LaForest was provided in the structure of Sjostedt, assuming an embodiments where the tubular fiber and the filler are the same type of material, the structure as set forth in claim 5 would have been present, and/or it would have been obvious to have selected the position of the fibers to provide a structure having the desired properties of strength, elongation, flexibility, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt in view of Ender as applied to claims above, and further in view of Okamoto et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,580,642.
Sjostedt discloses employing thermoplastic fibers but does not clearly teach the particularly claimed fibers.
However, Okamoto discloses a reinforcing preform which comprises thermoplastic fibers and reinforcing fibers. See abstract. The fibers can be braided. See figures. The reinforcing fibers can be carbon, glass, or ceramic, while the thermoplastic fibers can be nylon, polyester and polyethylene. See col. 3, lines 13-48. The amount of reinforcing filaments relative to the volume of the preform would necessarily have a relationship with the strength, bending modulus, bending strength and tensile modulus of the preform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the particular fibers as taught by Okamoto in view of their suitability for this intended purpose.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations regarding winding the fibrous structure on a spool, Sjostedt teaches winding the structure around a spool in paragraph 0011.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789