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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/2026.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, the term “preferably” is read similarly as the phrase "such as" and thus renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Other dependent claims 4 and 7-11 are also rejected at least due to their dependence or ultimate dependence upon claim 1.
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.
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.
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