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 .
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff (US 2020/0189174).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 10-11, Bischoff discloses a method for producing a bent thermoplastic composite (par. 0001), said thermoplastic composite comprising 55% volume in fiber in at least one example (par. 0105) and “about 55%” (par. 01, and a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers (par. 0051 lists at least one example of PMMA), said method comprising:
(a) a step of providing the thermoplastic composite (par. 0073 – pultrusion device 10 which provides composite bar 11; par. 0074);
(b) a step of heating a portion of the thermoplastic composite (par. 0019), said heating being ultrasonic or IR (par. 0009), and a heating duration/temperature are based on the mass/diameter of the composite bar (par. 0108);
(c) a step of creating a bent portion (par. 0106) by bending the heated portion (Figs. 3-5 and others showing the bending of the heated portion of the composite);
(d) a step of cooling the bent section to solidify it and form a bent thermoplastic composite (par. 0046, 0095-0096) and the cooling parameters would be based on the glass transition temperature of the composite (par. 0108).
Bischoff does not explicitly disclose that the thermoplastic composite has at least 65% fiber (but instead has 55%).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there are more workable values for the amount of fiber/polymer in a given composite and that the properties would predictably change upon adjusting the ratio of fiber/polymer. It has been held that where the prior art discloses the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find the optimum or workable ranges. 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 fiber volume is 65% instead of the disclosed 55% fiber.
Please see “response to arguments” section below for a further discussion on this limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Bischoff discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that heating can be conducted using IR heating (par. 0009), as background information.
It is noted that the claim recites “radial heating” but this would seem to be “radiant” not “radial” heating from context as the “preferably” portion of the claim which is read as an example, recites “IR heating.”
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8-9, Bischoff discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the plastic/polymer has a glass transition temperature of 50 C, 80 C, 90 C, 100 C, up to 130 C, 140 C, and 150 C (par. 0047) to which it would be required to be heated in order to deform the material, and a heating duration of 10-20 seconds (par. 0103) which is less than the claimed “equal to or less than 95 seconds.”
Regarding claim 7, Bischoff discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the polymer in the composite can be crosslinked but does not have to be crosslinked (par. 0047) and can be partially crosslinked (at least 25%, 50%, 70%, 90% - par. 0047), but only one of these conditions is required to meet the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below.
In response, Examiner first submits that it is well-known in the art that the amount of fiber and/or polymer (and/or any other additives) in a composite would be a result-effective variable upon the properties of the object produced. A composite with less fiber and more resin would be more malleable and have reduced finishing strength than a composite with more fiber and less resin. Furthermore, the teaching of “about 55%” is only marginally less fiber than one including “65%” fiber. Applicant’s argument (see p. 8, Remarks) with respect to any advantageous properties is not found to be persuasive additionally because these (mechanical and physical) properties are not shown to be critical to the claimed range(s). Furthermore, the language “improves mechanical and chemical properties of the bent section” as a disclosure is not meaningful as it does not describe any specific type of property that is improved but only briefly refers to mechanical and chemical properties which are not apparently supported by the evidence of record. As such, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Additionally, Bischoff, par. 0108 clearly teaches that the process parameters, including the percentage of the fibers used in the composite bar, can be adjusted depending on the configuration of the bending device and the selected plastic material, or some other required factor with the process as described here. As such, this clearly would have also been recognized in the reference as being a result-effective variable – and also, it is not considered inventive to discover the workable or optimum ranges where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a composite with “about 55%” fiber would have been predictably similar to one having “65%” fiber. There is no evidence of record that supports the idea that this 65% value is of any significance or would have any superior properties that would have been unexpected based on the routine optimization. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
Conclusion
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 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