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 of (Invention I) drawn to (Claims 1 – 14) in the reply filed on (2 – 3 – 2026) is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Consequently, (Inventions II & III) drawn to (claim 14 – 20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the same reply filed on (2 – 3 – 2026).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently claim(s) 3 recite a “rotatable mandral” it should be spelled “rotatable mandrel” for the purposes of claim clarity.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 & 4 – 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaillard et al. (US 20130248087 A1, hereinafter Gaillard) in view of Meyer et al. (US 20180272566 A1, hereinafter Meyer)Regarding claim 1,
An apparatus for preparing a composite, the apparatus comprising:
a first container containing a resin;
a second container containing a hardener,
wherein at least one of the first or second container contains nanoparticles;
a metering unit arranged to receive the resin from the first container and the hardener from the second container and configured to output a treating mixture,
wherein the metering unit controls a ratio of the resin and the hardener in the treating mixture; and
a treatment device arranged to receive a filament and the treating mixture, and treat the filament with the treating mixture to produce the composite.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0141]) teaches , the pultrusion method utilized implements a fibrous material, which is in the form of unidirectional fibers or strips of fabrics, the fibers are placed in a bath of thermosetting resin(s), the fibers are then passed into a heated die where the shaping and the crosslinking (the curing) take place. As such, the thermosetting resin(s) is found to be in a bath.
([0010]) teaches that The curing agent or element for the activation of the crosslinking reaction which has been introduced into the thermosetting resin remains inactive as long as its reaction temperature is not reached. Where the curing agent acts as the hardener. ([0104]) teaches that for this, the fibrous materials are passed into fluidized bed impregnating baths of polymer particles containing the nanofillers/curing agent mixture and these impregnations are optionally dried and may be heated in order to complete the impregnation of the polymer on the fibers or fabrics, and calendared if necessary. As such, the use of a plurality of baths is understood to be disclosed.
([0006]) teaches that the pre-impregnated fibrous materials may also contain conductive nanofillers of carbon origin such as carbon nanotubes (or CNTs), carbon black, nanofibers or graphenes, more particularly carbon nanotubes (CNTs).
& e.) ([0159]) teaches that after kneading, at the outlet of the take-up extruder a solid mixture is obtained exiting the die, containing 25% of CNTs and 75% of curing agent. This mixture is then used as is or after dilution in the same curing agent, depending on the targeted CNT content, for the manufacture of an epoxy-amine/glass fibers composite, by infusion. ([0160]) teaches that a few minutes before the infusion step, the curing agent/CNT (1% CNT) liquid mixture is introduced into the thermosetting resin (Araldite LY 5052 from Huntsman) with a weight ratio of 38 parts of curing agent per 100 parts of resin. The mixing is carried out using a blade mixer for a few seconds. As such, the ratio of thermosetting resin to be curing agent is understood to be controlled. It should be noted that a metering unit is not mentioned directly, however the controlling of the ratio via dilution by one of ordinary skill in the art is disclosed. Accordingly, the case law for automating a manual activity may be recited. Where, he court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (Note: with no specific) to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Adding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to optimize and control said ratio. With ([0007]) teaches that the amount of CNT present impacts the improve the mechanical and/or thermal and/or electrical properties of the mechanical parts based on said material. With ([0061]) noting that the nanofillers/curing agent mixture may comprise additives, for example compounds which will be inert with respect to the crosslinking reaction (such as solvents) or on the contrary reactive solvents or diluents that will control the crosslinking reaction by adjusting certain mechanical properties of the final thermoset resin. As such, it is understood that by implementing diluents / controlling the ratio of the curing agent certain mechanical properties of the final thermoset resin are impacted. Accordingly, both the nanofillers and curing agent (and by extension the nanofillers/curing agent mixture) is understood to be a result effective variable that impacts various mechanical properties of the of the final thermoset resin produced. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, t is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
([0111]) teaches that a pre-impregnated material, when the two series of fibers are heated at the melting temperature Tm of the fibers of the second series, they are also shaped in order to obtain a homogeneous material of calibrated shape and dimensions with the appliance as described below. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 1), ([0114]) provided is a line for the continuous formation of said material in the form of a calibrated and homogeneous strip of reinforcing fibers, for example mineral reinforcing fibers, impregnated with thermosetting polymer according to the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Gaillard is silent on details regarding the second container and the metering unit. Noting that Gaillard teaches that the nanofillers/curing agent mixture may be introduced to the thermosetting polymer resin, ([0016]). In analogous art for an impregnation device (200) for impregnating a fiber reinforcement material with a thermosetting resin composition, (Abstract), Meyer suggests details regarding the second container and metering unit, and in this regard, Meyer teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches that as shown in FIG. 1, two (or more) resin system components are stored separately in storage tanks 32, 34, 36; and then the resin components are combined in a mixing tank 38 to form a reactive mixture. ([0064]) teaches that the resin system comprises several constituents including an epoxy resin and hardener. As such, separately in storage tanks 32, 34, 36 understood to be provided for the various constituent components including an epoxy resin and hardener
& e. ) ([0033]) teaches that the flow of the resin system components is provided by metering pumps. The metering pumps deliver the correct mix ratio of the resin system to the mixing tank 38 (that may or may not be agitated depending on the system used). As such, the metering pumps provide for a metering unit utilized to tailor and control the mix ratio of the resin system, namely the constituent components within storage tanks 32, 34, 36, including an epoxy resin and hardener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of First Author. By modifying apparatus to comprise storage tanks and a metering unit, as taught by Meyer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement storage tanks and a metering unit as they provide for two (or more) resin system components to be stored separately, ([0033]) and provides for tailoring and controlling the amount of resin system components mixed together and utilized during the impregnation of the fiber, ([0033]). Highlighting, that the that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filament is a single continuous fibre.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0002]) teaches that the expression “fibrous materials” is understood to mean an assembly of reinforcing fibers which may be either short fibers such as felts or nonwovens that may be in the form of strips, sheets, braids, rovings or fragments, or continuous fibers such as for example in 2D fabrics, UD fibers or nonwovens. Where a braid is understood to be a single continuous fibre. As such, the use of a filament is a single continuous fibre is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0002]) teaches that the expression “fibrous materials” is understood to mean an assembly of reinforcing fibers which may be either short fibers such as felts or nonwovens that may be in the form of strips, sheets, braids, rovings or fragments, or continuous fibers such as for example in 2D fabrics, UD fibers or nonwovens. As such, the use of continuous fibers / a plurality of continuous fibres is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein the filament is a carbon fibre tow.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0003]) teaches that he fibers that may be incorporated into the composition of the material are more especially carbon fibers, glass fibers, mineral fibers such as basalt, silicon carbide, polymer-based fibers, plant fibers, cellulose fibers such as viscose, flax, hemp, silk, sisal, used alone or as a mixture.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the resin comprises the nanoparticles.
Gaillard teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the fiber are impregnated by a thermosetting polymer resin comprising a mixture containing a hardener and carbon nanofillers, such as carbon nanotubes (CNT). As such, the thermosetting polymer resin is understood to comprises the nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the hardener comprises the nanoparticles.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that the nanofillers are introduced into the thermosetting polymer, not alone, but by means of the nanofillers/curing agent mixture. As such, the curing agent / hardener is understood to comprise nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the resin is selected from polyester resin, phenolic resin, epoxy resin, vinyl ester resin and polyurethane resin.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0087]) teaches that the thermosetting resins, those comprising epoxy, acid or isocyanate units are preferred, such as those which lead to thermoset networks of epoxy, polyester or polyurethane type being obtained by reaction with a curing agent bearing respectively an amine, acid or alcohol function.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the hardener is selected from epoxy hardener, and an amine based hardener.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0087]) teaches that in the presence of a curing agent of amine (including polyamine, polyamide amine and polyether amine) type or of anhydride type. As such, the curing agent / hardener is understood to be an amine-based hardener.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the nanoparticles are graphene nanoparticles.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0006]) teaches that pre-impregnated fibrous materials may also contain conductive nanofillers of carbon origin such as carbon nanotubes (or CNTs), carbon black, nanofibers or graphenes, more particularly carbon nanotubes (CNTs). As such, the nanoparticles are understood to include graphene nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim ,
Further comprising
a nozzle coupled between the metering unit and
the treatment device to supply the treating mixture from the metering unit to the treatment device.
Regarding Claim 12, Gaillard is silent on details regarding a nozzle coupled between the metering unit and the treatment device to supply the treating mixture from the metering unit to the treatment device. In analogous art as applied above, Meyer suggests details regarding a nozzle coupled between the metering unit and the treatment device to supply the treating mixture from the metering unit to the treatment device, and in this regard, Meyer teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches the liquid contents of the mixing tank 38 can be sent through a static mixer 39 before the liquid resin is flowed into the impregnation box 20 to deposit the reactive resin mixture into a fiber bundle 14 being pulled through the impregnation box 20 of the process. ([0033]) adding the separately stored reactants forming the liquid resin may be combined directly in the static mixer 39. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 1), the static mixer 39 acts as applicant’s nozzle coupled between the metering unit (or metered out mixture), and the injection device 20 (the treatment device) to supply the treating mixture from the metering unit (or metered out mixture) to the injection device 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of First Author. By modifying apparatus to comprise a static mixer 39 as arranged between the metering unit (metered out mixture), and the injection device 20 (the treatment device), as taught by Meyer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide a the reactants to be mixed, to provide for a reactive mixture immediately begins curing at the curing temperature upon leaving the impregnation device, ([0048]). Highlighting, that the that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 12,
Wherein the nozzle comprises an internal structure arranged to mix the resin and the hardener of the treating mixture.
Regarding Claim 12, Gaillard is silent on details regarding the nozzle comprises an internal structure arranged to mix the resin and the hardener of the treating mixture. In analogous art as applied above, Meyer suggests details regarding the nozzle comprises an internal structure arranged to mix the resin and the hardener of the treating mixture, and in this regard, Meyer teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches the liquid contents of the mixing tank 38 can be sent through a static mixer 39 before the liquid resin is flowed into the impregnation box 20 to deposit the reactive resin mixture into a fiber bundle 14 being pulled through the impregnation box 20 of the process. ([0033]) adding the separately stored reactants forming the liquid resin may be combined directly in the static mixer 39. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 1), the static mixer 39 is understood to comprises an internal structure arranged to mix the resin and the hardener of the treating mixture.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 12, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0159]) teaches that after kneading, at the outlet of the take-up extruder a solid mixture is obtained exiting the die, containing 25% of CNTs and 75% of curing agent. This mixture is then used as is or after dilution in the same curing agent, depending on the targeted CNT content, for the manufacture of an epoxy-amine/glass fibers composite, by infusion. ([0160]) teaches that a few minutes before the infusion step, the curing agent/CNT (1% CNT) liquid mixture is introduced into the thermosetting resin (Araldite LY 5052 from Huntsman) with a weight ratio of 38 parts of curing agent per 100 parts of resin. The mixing is carried out using a blade mixer for a few seconds. As such, the ratio of thermosetting resin to be curing agent is understood to be controlled. It should be noted that a metering unit is not mentioned directly, however the controlling of the ratio via dilution by one of ordinary skill in the art is disclosed. Accordingly, the case law for automating a manual activity may be recited. Where, he court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (Note: with no specific) to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.Alternatively, ([0131]) adds that the continuous formation line L is managed via a control station 400, of computer type with a display screen. This station 400 is connected via a network for example to the various electric control devices of the line: electric motors, variable speed drives and speed and temperature regulators, motor of the haul-off line in order to enable the various synchronizations necessary for the continuous operation of the line L. This control station also makes it possible to record all the parameters for the management of the automatic operations and synchronization. As such, the continuous operation of the line L including a metering unit is understood to comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.
B.) Claim(s) 2 – 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Gaillard in view of Meyer and in further view of Marc Lepretre (FR 3045447 A1, hereinafter Lepretre)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising:
a robotic control arm coupled to the treatment device; and
a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control arm.
Regarding Claim 2, Gaillard as modified by Meyer is silent on a robotic control arm coupled to the treatment device, nor a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control arm. In analogous art for a method for manufacturing a composite material, for producing by filament winding of an industrial part, comprising impregnating a ribbon of carbon fibers, (Abstract), Lepretre suggests details regarding a robotic control arm coupled to the treatment device, nor a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control arm, and in this regard, Lepretre teaches the following:
(Pg. 3) teaches that while using a rotating mold (30), (1032) the passing of the carbon fiber ribbon (10) through a guidance system of a robot (70), (1033) and moving said guidance system of said robot (70) in translation at least along an axis parallel to the elongation axis (XX) of said mold. As such, the robot (70) acts as a robotic control arm coupled to the treatment device.
(PG. 5) teaches that the movements of the guide system 70 and the rotation of the chuck 30 are synchronized, most often by means of a numerically controlled PLC. As such, the robotic control (70) / guide system (70) is provided with a numerically controlled PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). As such, the PLC provides for a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control (70) / guide system (70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of Gaillard as modified by Meyer. By further modifying apparatus to comprise a robotic control (70) / guide system (70) with a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control (70) / guide system (70), as taught by Lepretre. Highlighting one would be motivated to implement a robotic control (70) / guide system (70) with a control unit configured to control movement of the robotic control (70) / guide system (70) as it provides for filament winding involves depositing a ribbon of resin-impregnated carbon fibers onto a mandrel. Such that the fiber ribbon is deposited onto the rotating mandrel by means of a mobile robot at least in translation along an axis parallel to the elongation axis of the mandrel, (Pg. 2). Highlighting, that the that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim ,
Further comprising
a rotatable mandral,
wherein the robotic control arm is positioned above the rotatable mandral, and
the control unit is configured to move the robotic control arm along a length of the rotatable mandral during rotation of the rotatable mandral whilst the composite is dispensed via an output of the treatment device.
Gaillard teaches the following:
([0117]) teaches that a winding device 300: this device comprises several flat reels in the form of flat spools such as 301. As such, the winding device comprising flat spools 301 is understood to provide a rotatable mandrel.
Regarding Claim 3, Gaillard as modified by Meyer is silent on the apparatus further comprise a rotatable mandrel where the robotic control arm is positioned above the rotatable mandrel and the control unit is configured to move the robotic control arm along a length of the rotatable mandrel during rotation of the rotatable mandrel whilst the composite is dispensed via an output of the treatment device. In analogous art as applied above, Lepretre suggests details regarding the apparatus further comprise a rotatable mandrel where the robotic control arm is positioned above the rotatable mandrel and the control unit is configured to move the robotic control arm along a length of the rotatable mandrel during rotation of the rotatable mandrel whilst the composite is dispensed via an output of the treatment device), and in this regard, Lepretre teaches the following:
– c.) (Pg. 2) teaches that filament winding involves depositing a ribbon of resin-impregnated carbon fibers onto a mandrel. The chuck has an elongation axis and is rotated around a rotation axis. In this case, the elongation axis and the rotation axis of the chuck are 35 coincident. The fiber ribbon is deposited onto the rotating mandrel by means of a mobile robot at least in translation along an axis parallel to the elongation axis of the mandrel. The carbon fiber ribbon moves through a robot guidance system. The robot's back-and-forth movements in front of the chuck allow the creation of composite layers by stacking ribbons of fibers, in which the orientation of the fibers and the sequence of the layers determine the strength and rigidity of the composite material produced,As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 1), a the robotic control arm is positioned and provided above rotating chuck / mandrel is acting as applicant’s rotatable mandrel. With the control unit is configured to move the robotic control arm along a length of the rotatable mandrel during rotation of the rotatable mandrel whilst the composite is dispensed via an output of the treatment device
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.C.) Claim(s) 4 – 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Gaillard in view of Meyer and in further view of Gaillard et al. (US 20160346966 A1, hereinafter Gaillard II)Regarding claim 4 – 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the filament is a single continuous fibre.
Wherein the filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres.
Gaillard teaches the following:
& 5a.) ([0002]) teaches that the expression “fibrous materials” is understood to mean an assembly of reinforcing fibers which may be either short fibers such as felts or nonwovens that may be in the form of strips, sheets, braids, rovings or fragments, or continuous fibers such as for example in 2D fabrics, UD fibers or nonwovens. Where a braid is understood to be a single continuous fibre. As such, the use of a filament is a single continuous fibre is understood to be disclosed. As such, the use of continuous fibers / a plurality of continuous fibres is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding Claim 4 – 5, Gaillard as modified by Meyer is silent on the filament is a single continuous fibre. In analogous art for a method to produce a pre-impregnated fibrous material, in particular in ribbon form, including a fibrous reinforcement and thermoplastic polymer matrix, (Abstract), Gaillard II suggests details regarding the filament is a single continuous fibre, and in this regard, Gaillard II teaches the following:
([0008]) teaches that In the present invention, by “fibrous material” is meant an assembly of reinforcing fibres. Before being formed, it is in the form of rovings. After forming, it is in the form of strips or sheets or braids or in piece-form. If the reinforcing fibres are continuous, the assembly thereof forms a fabric. If the fibres are short, the assembly thereof forms a felt or nonwoven. ([0091]) expands on this stating that the chosen fibres can be single-strand, multi-strand or a mixture of both, and can have several gram weights. In addition, they may have several geometries. They may therefore be in the form of short fibres, then producing felts or nonwovens in the form of strips, sheets, braids, rovings or pieces, or in the form of continuous fibres producing 2D fabrics, fibres or rovings of unidirectional fibres (UD) or nonwovens. The constituent fibres of the fibrous material may also be in the form of a mixture of these reinforcing fibres having different geometries. Preferably, the fibres are continuous. As such, the use of either a single-strand, multi-strand fiber, namely a filament is a single continuous fibre, or a filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of Gaillard as modified by Meyer. By further modifying apparatus to comprise a either a single-strand, multi-strand fiber, namely a filament is a single continuous fibre, or a filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres is understood to be disclosed, as taught by Gaillard II. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a single-strand, multi-strand fiber, namely a filament is a single continuous fibre, or a filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres is understood to be disclosed as it provides for reinforcing fibres having different geometries, ([0091]). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., a single continuous fibre, or a filament comprises a plurality of continuous fibres in a known environment, namely fiber used for the impregnation with thermoplastic polymer, for its intended use specially fibrous reinforcement, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.D.) Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Gaillard in view of Meyer and in further view of Staneluis (US 4828897 A, hereinafter Staneluis)
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.
Regarding Claim 14, Gaillard as modified by Meyer is silent on details regarding the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.. In analogous art for a polymeric composite comprising supplying to a mixing head 138, located upstream of the entry end of the cavity, from through supply lines from a bank of five positive displacement meters 140 (Col. 7, lines 65 – End & Col. 8, lines 1 – 5), Staneluis suggests details regarding the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio, and in this regard, Staneluis teaches the following:
(Col. 7, lines 65 – End & Col. 8, lines 1 – 15) teaches that With reference to polyurethane formulations, the core components are supplied to a mixing head 138, located upstream of the entry end of the cavity, from through supply lines from a bank of five positive displacement meters 140. Four of the five meters 140 are fed by the supply lines from reservoirs 142. The reservoirs 142 may contain a single component or a mixture thereof. To enable this dynamic control, the positive displacement meters are used and provide the capability to make very small adjustments in the catalyst and water ratios. All of the meters are hydraulically driven by a motor 150, timed together by a common spline shaft 152, such that the ratios of the metered components remain the same, thereby delivering a flow to match belt speed. (Col. 8, lines 21 – 28) teaches that these are the positive displacement type referred to above and driven by a common motor and shaft. The stroke of each may be changed during operation of the process. This stroke adjustment allows control of a discrete meter. Thus, the chemical ratios may be changed without affecting the delivery rate. As such, the positive displacement meters provided with a motor and shaft provide for an input device for a user to control and input the desired and metered ratio of the variable constituent components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of Gaillard as modified by Meyer. By further modifying apparatus to comprise a metering unit with an positive displacement pumps for a user to control and input the desired ratio constituent components, as taught by Staneluis. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide metering unit with a motor and shaft for a user to input the desired ratio as it provides for tailoring and controlling the desired and metered ratio of the variable constituent components without impact their delivery rate, (Col. 8, lines 21 – 28). Highlighting, that the that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.E.) Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Gaillard in view of Meyer and in further view of Dirk Kraemer (US 20130099405 A1, hereinafter Kraemer)Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.
Regarding Claim 14, Gaillard as modified by Meyer is silent on details regarding the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio.. In analogous art for mixing unit (mixing head) for a resin and a hardener for the injection resin, which is connectable to the mold and supplied with the two components to be mixed via two feed hoses from two storage tanks by means of a separate motor-pump in each case, ([0029]), Kraemer suggests details regarding the metering unit comprises an input device for a user to input the ratio, and in this regard, Kraemer teaches the following:
([0029]) teaches that mixing unit (mixing head) for a resin and a hardener for the injection resin, which is connectable to the mold and supplied with the two components to be mixed via two feed hoses from two storage tanks by means of a separate motor-pump in each case. ([0060]) teaches that it is possible to use the control system 11 for data detection for quality assurance, in particular using a temperature and pressure sensor system. In particular, PC-regulated metering of the media is carried out by PC control via the speed control system of the motors on the metering pumps. ([0061]) adding that a high level of reproducibility of the products to be produced is ensured, and the mixing ratio and the injection speed may be set as desired. Flexible use of different resin systems requiring different mixing ratios is possible. As such, the PC control provides for a metering unit comprising an input device for a user to input the ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing producing a fibrous material including carbon fibres or glass fibres or plant fibres or polymer-based fibres that utilized a thermosetting polymer and curing agent / nanoparticle mixture of Gaillard as modified by Meyer. By further modifying apparatus to comprise a metering unit with a PC control for a user to input the desired ratio, as taught by Kraemer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide metering unit with PC control as it provides for tailoring and controlling the speed control system of the motors on the metering pumps, ([0060]) leading to a high level of reproducibility of the products to be produced is ensured, and the mixing ratio and the injection speed may be set as desired, ([0061]). Highlighting, that the that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gauchel et al. (US 5747075 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method and apparatus for resin injected pultrusion is provided. The method comprises injecting a resin material into a reinforcement pack at a sufficiently high pressure such that the pressure in the injection area or weir of the injection die is substantially equal to the compression pressure applied by the exit portion of the injection die.
Wallace F Krueger (US 3920223 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present Plural Component Mixing Head is an important breakthrough in the known plural resin systems using liquid components such as polyesters, epoxies, urethanes, silicone, alkyd, acrylics and the like. It is particularly useful as a Two Stage Mixing Head whereby solid filler additives may now be added to the mixed liquid resins for body, strength, volume or pure economics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743