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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 27, 2024, September 26, 2025, and May 20, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim reads “any one of claims 1…”. 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.
Claim 26 and 55 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. It is unclear what is meant by “does not comprise a pole shield surrounding the utility pole.” It is unclear whether the pole shield is a separate component or if the pole shield is the claimed laminate structure. If the pole shield is the claimed laminate structure, it is unclear how the utility pole can not have a pole shield. Clarification/correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10, 15, 18, 21-22, 24, 25, 27, 35, 37, 41-47, 50-54, 56, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kratzer et al. (US 2019/0375185). Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 41, 44-47, 50-51, 54, and 56, Kratzer et al. disclose a multilayer, hollow, tubular article formed from a multi-ply, hybrid composite material, said hybrid composite material comprising: [0008] a first unidirectional fibrous ply bonded to a second unidirectional fibrous ply, said first unidirectional fibrous ply comprising first fibers and a first polymeric binder material and said second unidirectional fibrous ply comprising second fibers and a second polymeric binder material, wherein the first fibers and the second fibers are different fiber types, [0009] wherein the first polymeric binder material and the second polymeric binder material combined comprise at least 30% by weight of the composite material (0007). The composite material is placed onto a tubular structure by wrapping the composite material around itself, leaving a hollow central opening (0015). Regarding claim 3, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 42, suitable elongate bodies for the fabrication of first elongate body ply 12 are glass fibers (0038). Similar to the first elongate body ply 12, the second elongate body ply 14 may also be fabricated from fibers, fibrous tapes or a combination thereof. Suitable second fibers for the fabrication of second elongate body ply 14 include glass fibers (0042). Regarding claim 24 and 53, useful as binder polymers can be aliphatic polyurethane dispersions (0056). Additionally, the first polymeric binder material and the second polymeric binder material preferably comprise chemically different polymers. For example, one binder may be a thermosetting polymer/resin such as an epoxy or a thermosetting polyurethane polymer with the other being a thermoplastic copolymer/resin, such as a thermoplastic polyurethane, or the first and second polymeric binder materials may be two different thermosetting polymers, such as a thermosetting epoxy and a thermosetting polyurethane, or two different thermoplastic polymers, such as two different thermoplastic polyurethanes. It should be noted that aliphatic polyurethanes are known to be UV-resistant. Regarding claim 25 and 27, the resultant tubular structure may be employed in a variety of applications, including weight bearing supports such as tent supports and bicycle frames, or in articles that are subjected to significant cylindrical stress, such as fishing rods, golf clubs, ski poles, etc. Another use for the tubular structures of this disclosure is as a covering or liner for existing pipe or hose (0069). Regarding claim 10, in accordance with the preferred objectives of this disclosure, the second elongate body ply 14 has a fiber areal density of at least three times (3×) the fiber areal density of the first elongate body ply 12, more preferably at least four times (4×) the fiber areal density of the first elongate body ply 12 and most preferably at least five times (5×) the fiber areal density of the first elongate body ply 12 (0060). Therefore, Kratzer et al. teaches the claimed limitation of different areal weights. In addition to each of the first and second elongate body plies being fabricated from different fiber types, the plies also differ by the amount of polymeric binder/resin content and fiber areal density (FAD) (0051). The fibrous plies are fabricated such that the first elongate body ply 12 has a greater binder content than the second elongate body ply 14. Regarding claims 22 and 52, in the preferred embodiments, the first polymeric binder material of the first elongate body ply 12 comprises from about 30% to about 49.9% by weight of a polymeric binder, more preferably from about 30% to about 45%, and most preferably from about 30% to about 40% by weight of the fibers plus the weight of the binder. Regarding claim 22 and 52, in the preferred embodiments, the second polymeric binder material of the second elongate body ply 14 comprises from about 20% to about 40% by weight of a polymeric binder, more preferably from about 20% to about 35%, and most preferably from about 20% to about 30% by weight of the fibers plus the weight of the binder. Together, the first polymeric binder material and the second polymeric binder material combined comprise at least 30% by weight of the composite material, preferably from about 30% to about 45% by weight of the fibers plus the weight of the binder (0057). Regarding claim 4 and 43, Kratzer incorporates a woven fabric of glass fibers (0080).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, 37, 58, Kratzer et al. disclose a method of making the hybrid composite being helically wrapped around a mandrel to form a tubular structure (0032). In a typical process, fibers (filament bundles) are supplied from a creel and led through guides and one or more spreader bars into a collimating comb to form the web (0047). The binder coating is preferably dried/cured prior to storage (0050). Consolidation may also be conducted by vacuum molding the material in a mold that is placed under a vacuum (0062). An exemplary helical wrapping technique is illustrated in FIG. 5 wherein a layer of the composite 10 is wrapped around a cylindrical mandrel at an angle. In this method, the composite 10 is cut into narrow widths, helically wound onto a mandrel and then cured under suitable heat and preferably pressure (0066).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 16 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kratzer et al. (US 2019/0375185) in view of Steele et al. (US 2016/0346958). Kratzer et al. (US 2018/0375185) disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the total areal weight of the fibrous layers is about 24 ounces per square yard and that the areal weight of the fiberglass fabric layer is about 4-10 ounces per square yard.
Steele et al. (US 2016/0346958) disclose composite materials such as prepregs and their use in automated manufacturing. The molded articles are particularly suitable as components for transport applications, and particularly the automotive industry (abstract). The core layer of the laminar pre-preg used in the present invention comprises or consists of one or more layer(s) of reinforcing fibers impregnated with a first curable resin (0025). The reinforcing fibers can be a woven fiber structure (0026). The reinforcing fibres are preferably selected from, but not limited to, fibres of glass (including Electrical or E-glass) (0027). The core layer preferably comprises from about 40 to about 80 wt % reinforcing fibres, by total weight of the core layer. The core layer preferably comprises from about 20 to about 60 wt % of said first curable resin by total weight of the core layer. The amount of reinforcing fibres plus the amount of said first curable resin (which includes the optional additives described hereinabove) should equal 100 wt % of the core layer (0048-0049). Regarding claims 11 and 16 and 48, the core layer exhibits an areal weight of from about 200 to about 1500 g/m.sup.2, preferably from about 300 to about 1400 g/m.sup.2, preferably from about 400 to about 1100 g/m.sup.2 preferably from about 600 to about 1100 g/m.sup.2. It will be understood that the areal weight of the core layer includes the weight of the reinforcing fibres and the first curable resin (it should be noted that 24 osy= 813.75 g/m2 and 4-10 osy=135.6-339.1 g/m2). Therefore, Steele et al. discloses the areal weight of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to create the fibrous layer of Kratzer et al. with the areal weight taught by Steele et al., motivated by the desire to create a composite with increased strength and durability.
Claims 31 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kratzer et al. (US 2019/0375185) in view of Gu et al. (US 2020/0215770). Kratzer et al. (US 2018/0375185) disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the resin comprises an aromatic polyurethane resin.
Gu et al. (US 2020/0215770) disclose a pultrusion method comprising the following steps: i) preforming inner layer fibers; ii) impregnating the preformed inner layer fibers with a first resin to obtain a first preform; iii) heating and curing the first preform to obtain an inner layer profile; iv) preforming outer layer fibers together with the inner layer profile; v) impregnating the outer layer fibers with a second resin to obtain a second preform; and vi) heating and curing the second preform to obtain the fiber-reinforced composite (abstract). The inner layer fibers may be any of the fibers used to reinforce the resin, for example, one or more selected from the group consisting of glass fibers. The inner layer fibers may be in the form of yarns, unidirectional fabrics, woven fabrics, and the like. The first resin may be any resin that needs to be reinforced, for example, one or more selected from the group consisting of aromatic polyurethane and aliphatic polyurethane. The content of the inner layer fiber generally ranges from 55 to 90% by weight, preferably from 65 to 85% by weight, more preferably from 70 to 82% by weight, based on the total weight of the inner layer fibers and the first resin (0042-0045). The outer layer fibers may be any of the fibers used to reinforce the resin, for example, one or more selected from the group consisting of glass fibers. The outer layer fibers may take the form of yarns, unidirectional fabrics, and woven fabrics, and the like. The second resin may be any resin that needs to be reinforced, for example, one or more selected from the group consisting of aromatic urethane and aliphatic polyurethane. Alternatively, the second resin may be a modified resin, for example, the above resin containing flame retardants and/or UV stabilizers. The content of the outer fiber content generally ranges from 55 to 90% by weight, preferably from 65 to 85% by weight, more preferably from 70 to 82% by weight, based on the total weight of the outer layer fibers and the second resin (0050-0053). The fiber-reinforced polyurethane composite can be used for preparing polyurethane tube boxes, bridge frames, anti-glare panels, doors and windows, curtain wall profiles, solar panel frames, fish boards, sleepers, shelves, trays, ladder frames, insulation rods, tent poles, container floor, third rail of the track, etc. (0060). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the resin material comprising both aliphatic and aromatic polyurethane taught by Gu et al. as the binder material in Kratzer et al., motivated by the desire to create a laminate that has increased UV resistance (aliphatic polyurethane) with cheaper production costs associated with (aromatic polyurethane).
Claims 17 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kratzer et al. (US 2019/0375185) in view of WO 2008/033134 (hereinafter WO ‘134). Kratzer et al. (US 2018/0375185) disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the fiberglass fabric has a weave of from about 18x18 to about 24x24 yarns per square inch.
WO ‘134 disclose a pipe having a fabric that overlies the outer surface, preferably in a helical wrap. The fabric provides the pipe with improved burst strength and impact resistance (abstract). The fabric of this invention may be in the form of woven fabrics formed from glass fibers (page 4, ln 28 to page 5, ln 8). In one embodiment, the fabric preferably has between about 15 and about 55 ends per inch (about 5.9 to about 21 .6 ends per cm) in both the warp and fill directions, and more preferably between about 17 and about 45 ends per inch (about 6.7 to about 17.7 ends per cm). The result is a woven fabric weighing preferably between about 2 and about 15 ounces per square yard (about 67.8 to about 508.6 g/nr), and more preferably between about 5 and about 1 1 ounces per square yard (about 169.5 to about 373.0 g/m.sup.2) (page 7, ln 28 to page 8, ln 1-8). If a woven fabric is employed, it may be of any weave pattern, including plain weave, twill, satin, three dimensional woven fabrics, and any of their several variations. Plain weave fabrics are preferred and more preferred are plain weave fabrics having an equal warp and weft count. The woven fabric may be used with a resin matrix (page 8, ln 10-15). The proportion of the resin matrix material to fiber in the fabric matrix preferably forms about 1 to about 98 percent by weight, more preferably from about 5 to about 95 percent by weight, and most preferably from about 5 to about 40 percent by weight, of the total weight of the fabric matrix (page 9, ln 27-30). The resin can be a polyurethane matrix (page 10, ln 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teaching of Steele et al. of woven fabric with 15-55 ends per inch with the fabric of Kratzer et al., motivated by the desire to create a fiber-reinforced laminate that can bear increased weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights