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 Group I, claims 19-29 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the International Search Authority Examiner did not find that unity of invention was broken and Applicant argues that the requirement should be withdrawn for that reason alone. This is not found persuasive because the ISA determination on unity of invention has no weight upon on the National Stage examination - see MPEP 1893(d) which clearly states that “[t]he examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the latter” should read “the fibrous substrate.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flory et al. (US 2020/0369840), hereinafter Flory.
Regarding claims 19 and 24, Flory discloses a process for producing a thermoformable polymer/fiber composite where: the fibrous substrate (par. 0016 – describes the claimed ratio as at least 5, overlapping with the at least 3 as in the claim) is introduced into the gas stream (par. 0078), then, the fibrous substrate is contacted with an aqueous dispersion of a polymer P (par. 0066 describes the glass transition temperature as in both claims 19 and 24, see also par. 0079);
the fibrous substrate is dried in the gas stream and then deposited (par. 0080), the fiber web obtained is consolidated at a temperature greater than Tg as to give a polymer/fiber composite (par. 0081-0082), as to increase the density thereof by a factor of at least 3 (par. 0088).
Flory further discloses that the aqueous dispersion of polymer P is obtained by polymerization of a monomer composition of: 5-30% by weight of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid (par. 0027) (A1), styrene (par. 0051), or methyl methacrylate (par. 0027, 0055), in an aqueous medium in the presence of a polymer A (par. 0119). See table in par. 0055.
Flory further discloses that polymer A (par. 0024) includes acrylic acid (A1) (par. 0032), and maleic acid (A2) (par. 0027), and the amount would add up to 100%, inherently. Polymer A includes acrylic acid and maleic acid/anhydride and so it would meet: “with the proviso that neither polymer A nor polymer mixture A is formed from an ester selected from the esters of ethylenically unsaturated monocarboxylic acids with amines having at least two hydroxyl groups . . . . “
It is noted that components M3 and A3 are optional and not required to be met in the prior art (due to a claimed lower limit of 0%; 0% allows for no inclusion of the component).
Flory does not appear to explicitly disclose the concentration ranges as required in the claims, but all ranges disclosed in the prior art seem to at least overlap with or lie inside of the claimed range(s).
It has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the monomers are present in the concentrations as required in the claims.
Regarding claim 20, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the fibrous substrate used is a lignocellulosic fiber (a type of natural fiber) (par. 0016-0017).
Regarding claims 21-22, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the Mw of the polymer A is 1000-30000 g/mol (par. 0036), overlapping with the claimed range of 1000-20000 g/mol. Since polymer mixture A is not required by claim 19 under its BRI (which includes polymer A or polymer mixture A), claim 22 is considered met as contingent upon polymer mixture A being present in the claim, and not polymer A.
As discussed above, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the molecular weight of the polymer A is as required in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that polymer A is 50:50 (or 1:1) (par. 0071, 0129).
Regarding claim 25, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the polymer P includes styrene and/or methyl methacrylate (par. 0131, table), n-butyl acrylate, and glycidyl acrylate (par. 0131, table).
As discussed above, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that concentration of the mixture is as claimed.
Regarding claim 26, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the polymer P includes the claimed components (par. 0059, table) in an amount overlapping with the claimed ranges.
As discussed above, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with or lies inside of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the concentration of the mixture is as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further disclose that the polymer P comprises hydroxylamine (par. 0034) as a chain transfer agent; see also par. 0062.
Regarding claims 28-29, Flory discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses that the composite is two-dimensional and has a basis weight of 500-30000 g/m^2 (par. 0090).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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 D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights