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
Claims 16-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/9/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palikhel et al. ("Die Attached Versus Die-Detached Resin Injection Chamber for Pultrusion" Applied Compos Matter, 2013, 20: 55-72).
Regarding claim 1, Palikhel teaches and injection section for a pultrusion apparatus (see. Fig. 3) that is wider at the inlet than at the exit where the outlet is present. Palikhel fails to teach wherein the injection port of Palikhel is employed in what would be considered a vertical orientation. However, several points should be made. First a change in shape of the Region I of Fig. 4 such that the lower downward tilting section were flat and not tilted there would be a section that is higher than any other portion that may be referred to as the “top end” (the upward tilted section of Region I) as well as a portion that was as low as any portion that could be the “bottom end” (the flat lower section of Region II). The singular change to the invention of Palikhel that would cause the shape of Palikhel to read upon that of the current claims would read upon a mere change in shape of the prior art injection section wherein the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from a change in shape of a prior art shaped, changes in shape of prior art inventions are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Second it should be noted that the current claims are not method claims or use claims. They merely define the structure of the pultrusion bath. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In particular, if the invention of Palikhel were tilted at some angle such that the device collectively were slightly tilted then the device of Palikhel would read upon the current claims because the invention would have what could be considered a vertically oriented reservoir. Therefore because the device is reasonable capable of operation as claimed, it already reads upon the current claims. Further, the tapered section of the injection manifold of the device of Palikhel would be considered a part of the invention of Palikhel wherein the Court has long held that the mere rearrangement of parts of a prior art invention such that the rearrangement would not have altered the operation of the device were unpatentable over the prior art device arrangement. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the exterior of the heated die section of Palikhel were considered to be a part of the vertical impregnation bath, the plate of the front of the die (Fig. 1) forcing the roving into shape would be considered to be an inner guide plate configured to guide the roving through the reservoir.
Regarding claims 4-6, the front portion of the injection chamber of Palikhel is in the shape of a square funnel.
Regarding claim 7, an angle is present between the backside of the reservoir portion and the heated die of Palikhel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 8-9, the teachings of Palikhel are as shown above. Palikhel fails to teach wherein the angle between the reservoir and the die is within the range claimed. However, a change in this angle would be considered a mere rearrangement of the location of parts of Palikhel relative to one another wherein shifting the angle between the parts would not alter the operation of the device and would be considered a mere matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 10, Palikhel further teaches the use of a pre-from plate (Fig. 2) that would read upon the upper guide plate of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, the use of an inner guide plate in addition to the preform plate as described above would read upon a mere duplication of the preform plate of Palikhel wherein the Court has long held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, if the plates of Palikhel were duplicated as argued above, presumably the apertures would be identical.
Regarding claim 13, the roving apertures of the duplicated plates as argued above differ in that they are not the same physical plate. The current claims do not in any way describe how that the apertures differ in any way.
Regarding claim 14, Palikhel teaches an injection slot adjacent to Region II in Fig. 4A that may read upon an “outlet insert”.
Regarding claim 15, Palikhel teaches and injection section for a pultrusion apparatus (see. Fig. 3) that is wider at the inlet than at the exit where the outlet is present. Palikhel fails to teach wherein the injection port of Palikhel is employed in what would be considered a vertical orientation. However, several points should be made. First a change in shape of the Region I of Fig. 4 such that the lower downward tilting section were flat and not tilted there would be a section that is higher than any other portion that may be referred to as the “top end” (the upward tilted section of Region I) as well as a portion that was as low as any portion that could be the “bottom end” (the flat lower section of Region II). The singular change to the invention of Palikhel that would cause the shape of Palikhel to read upon that of the current claims would read upon a mere change in shape of the prior art injection section wherein the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from a change in shape of a prior art shaped, changes in shape of prior art inventions are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Second it should be noted that the current claims are not method claims or use claims. They merely define the structure of the pultrusion bath. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In particular, if the invention of Palikhel were tilted at some angle such that the device collectively were slightly tilted then the device of Palikhel would read upon the current claims because the invention would have what could be considered a vertically oriented reservoir. Therefore because the device is reasonable capable of operation as claimed, it already reads upon the current claims. Further, the tapered section of the injection manifold of the device of Palikhel would be considered a part of the invention of Palikhel wherein the Court has long held that the mere rearrangement of parts of a prior art invention such that the rearrangement would not have altered the operation of the device were unpatentable over the prior art device arrangement. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Palikhel further teaches the use of a pre-form plate (Fig. 2) that would read upon the upper guide plate of the claims.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palikhel et al. ("Die Attached Versus Die-Detached Resin Injection Chamber for Pultrusion" Applied Compos Matter, 2013, 20: 55-72) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-15 above and further in view of Straub et al. (“Comparison of the Processing of Epoxy Resins in Pultrusion with Open Bath Impregnation and Closed-Injection Pultrusion” Journal of Composite Science, 2019, 3, 87, pp. 1-11).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Palikhel are as shown above. Palikhel fails to teach wherein the reservoir comprising a guiding shaft within the reservoir that is used to guide rovings as they pass through the reservoir. However, Straub teaches that it is known to provide guide bars in the portions of a pultrusion chamber that are considered to be “straight through processes” (Fig. 1a) wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the guide bars maintain tension on the rovings as well as provide spread for the fibers so as to allow infiltration of the coating material into the roving bundle as well as provide direction to the fiber roving as it passes through the reservoir. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the guide bars of Straub in the invention of Palikhel in order to control the direction of the fiber roving within the injection chamber as well as to spread the fibers under tension so as to allow for resin infiltration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717