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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants’ Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 08/04/2026 has been entered. Claim 15 has been amended. Claims 1-14 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein. Claims 24-26 are withdrawn. Claims 15-26 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 5-8, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to Amended Claim 15, and Claims 16-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Amended Claim 15 the Applicant argues that,
the amended limitation of “co-extruding a sheath of thermoplastic material around the uncured impregnated thread”, where the word “uncured” had been added as the amendment, is not disclosed by Schmidt, as Schmidt discloses curing before co-extrusion and that Remp discloses partially/completely curing before, or fully during, applying the covering. The combination of Schmidt and Remp do not disclose co-extruding around and uncured thread. Moreover, cites Remp disclosing “before applying the covering, the resin in the pre-impregnated fibrous structure is generally at least partially or completely cured", as noted in para. 94.
Regarding Claims 16-20, and 22 the Applicant argues that,
As Claims 16-20, and 22 depend on Claim 15, the arguments for Claims 16-20, and 22 are same as for Claim 15, Schmidt and Ramp fail to disclose the Amendment of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17 the Applicant argues that,
As Claim 17 depends on Claim 15, the arguments for Claim 17 are same as for Claim 15, as Schmidt and Ramp fail to disclose the Amendment of Claim 15, wherein Westing fails to cure the deficiencies of Schmidt and Ramp.
Regarding Claim 20 the Applicant argues that,
As Claim 20 depends on Claim 15, the arguments for Claim 20 are same as for Claim 15, as Schmidt and Ramp fail to disclose the Amendment of Claim 15, wherein Kazemi fails to cure the deficiencies of Schmidt and Ramp.
Regarding Claim 21 the Applicant argues that,
As Claim 21 depends on Claim 15, the arguments for Claim 21 are same as for Claim 15, as Schmidt and Ramp fail to disclose the Amendment of Claim 15, wherein Gerard fails to cure the deficiencies of Schmidt and Ramp.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Amended Claim 15 , the Examiner replies,
Agreement with the Applicant noting that Remp discloses “before applying the covering, the resin in the pre-impregnated fibrous structure is generally at least partially or completely cured", as noted in para. 94. “At least partially cured” also means “at least partially uncured” which reads on the instant Amended Claim 15. Hence, the argument is moot. Amended Claim 15 maintains rejection.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Claims 16-20 and 22 , the Examiner replies,
the Examiners response for Claims 16-20, and 22 are same as for Claim 15. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejections for Claims 16-20, and 22 are maintained.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Claim 17, the Examiner replies,
the Examiners response for Claim 17 is same as for Claim 15. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 17 is maintained.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Claim 20, the Examiner replies,
the Examiners response for Claim 20 is same as for Claim 15. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 20 is maintained.
In response to the Applicants’ argument Regarding Claim 21, the Examiner replies,
the Examiners response for Claim 21 is same as for Claim 15. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 21 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 15-16, 18-19, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012120144A2 (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein by Schmidt et. al. (herein “Schmidt”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20180194561A1 by Remp et. al (herein “Remp”).
Regarding Claim 15 - Schmidt teaches a method for manufacturing a composite filament aimed to an additive manufacturing application or a winding application, said method comprising, in the following order:
providing a thread of fibers; [0011], [0020],[0026],”…following steps: a) producing….at least one fiber structure containing carbon fibers pre-impregnated …and stabilized with a polymer precursor, “ “For the purposes of the present invention, a fiber structure is understood to be any structure which comprises several…at least two fibers”, “ ..a roving…one or more strands….is used as the fiber structure containing carbon fibers”.
impregnating the of fibers thread with a liquid reactive thermoplastic resin; [0023], [0036], “…impregnating a fiber structure with a polymer precursor”…”For the process according to the invention, reactive thermoplastic precursors…are particularly suitable as polymer precursors”.
co-extruding a sheath of thermoplastic material around the impregnated thread; [0048], “the member produced in step a)…is coated a least partially with polymer by means of extrusion”, “ the member produced in step a) is coated in step b) at least partially with a thermoplastic…”
While Schmidt teaches curing of the reactive thermoplastic precursor, Schmidt fails to disclose,
the impregnated thread is uncured;
and the order of the curing as in the instant claim, such that after the co-extrusion of the sheath,
curing the liquid reactive thermoplastic resin;
In a similar endeavor of impregnating carbon fibers with reactive thermoplastic precursors and co-extruding a sheath, Remp teaches before applying the covering, the resins in the impregnated fibrous structure is at least partially cured (i.e. partially uncured) [0094] and that it has proven advantageous not to fully cure the impregnating polymer in the fibrous structure before applying the covering [0095]. Further, Remp discloses full curing of the impregnated polymer of the fibrous structure and the covering while applying the covering [0095]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not fully the cure the impregnated carbon fibers per the method of Remp in the method of Schmidt, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of improving the bond between the covering (sheath) and the matrix (impregnated material) as noted by Remp ([0095], lines 7-8).
Regarding Claim 16 - Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 15.
Remp teaches further comprising,
a step of solidifying the sheath of thermoplastic material at least partially before curing the
liquid reactive thermoplastic resin; [0095],
“… it has proven advantageous not to fully cure the impregnating polymer in the fibrous
structure before applying the covering. Full curing then takes place while applying the covering,
and the groups of the matrix resin in the fibrous structure, which structure has not yet been
polymerised, can then interact with the polymers used for the covering”. As recited, it is
suggested that the covering cures at the same time as the impregnated polymer in the fibrous
structure, meaning the cover would be partially solidified/cured at some time during the
process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially (and not fully) solidify the polymer
cover material as in the method of Remp for the method of Schmidt, one being motivated to do
so, for the purposes of improving the bond between the covering (sheath) and the matrix
(impregnated material) as noted by Remp ([0095], lines 7-8).
Regarding Claim 18 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 15.
Schmidt teaches wherein,
the liquid reactive thermoplastic resin is cured at a temperature; [0045], “For curing…during
the impregnation…the polymer precursor applied to the fiber structure…be heated…to a
temperature…preferably at least 80°C.”
that is lower than the melting temperature of the sheath of thermoplastic material; [0049], “ in
step b), the polymer is used which is selected from the group consisting of….thermoplastic
polyurethanes”. See Reference “MatWeb Plastic Material Data Sheets” (Table 2, Rows 1-3),
where the melting point of thermoplastic polyurethane is between 210°-220°C.
Therefore, the polymer precursor (thermoplastic resin) cure temperature is lower than the
melting temperature of the polymer (sheath).
Regarding Claim 19 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 18 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 18.
Schmidt teaches wherein,
the curing temperature of the liquid reactive thermoplastic resin is around 100°C; [0045], “For
curing…during the impregnation…the polymer precursor applied to the fiber structure…be
heated…to a temperature…preferably at least 80°C.
and the melting temperature of the sheath of the thermoplastic material is around 200°C;
[0049], “…in step b), the polymer is used which is selected from the group consisting
of….thermoplastic polyurethanes”. See Reference “MatWeb Plastic Material Data Sheets” (Table
2, Rows 1-3), where the melting point of thermoplastic polyurethane is between 210°-220°C.
Regarding Claim 22 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 15.
Schmidt teaches wherein,
the thread of fibers is made of dry carbon fibers; [0033], [0034], “…the fiber structure can be
used which….most preferably entirely of carbon fibers…”, “…step a) involves using a fiber
structure which contains at least partially coated with a sizing”. Carbon fibers with a sizing reads
on ”dry carbon fibers” per Claim Interpretation, Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 15.
Schmidt teaches wherein,
the co-extrusion is carried out with an extrusion nozzle having a circular or polygonal cross-
section;[0051], “…the polymer is preferably extruded onto the impregnated member…”,
“…an extrusion die can be used to extrude the polymer;
[0052],[0053], “For impregnation, a substantially ring-shaped extrusion die can generally be
used…”, “The advantageous embodiments…described above with regard to the method (i.e. the
method of impregnating the carbon fibers) apply accordingly to the sheathed tensile beam”.
Here, this interpreted as the ring-shaped die can also be deployed for the extrusion nozzle for
the polymer coating that is the sheath.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et. al. and in further view of Remp et. al. and in further view of USPGPUB 20180289173A1 by Westing et. al. (herein “Westing”)
Regarding Claim 17 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 15.
It would be reasonable that in Schmidt there is a sheath extrusion rate ([0066], “a drawing unit 36
pulls the sheathed tensile member 32 through the stages of the production line 8”). As well, it is cited
that the process is carried out such that the speed of the first step ((step a), impregnation) is the speed
of the second step ((step b), the co-extrusion of the cover/sheath) ([0025]). Yet the combination fails to
teach,
the sheath material is extruded at a rate of about 10 meters per minute.
In a similar endeavor of impregnating a reactive resin into a fiber bundle via pultrusion , partially curing
the bundle and introducing the bundle to an extruder to apply a thermoplastic melt as a cover (Abstract,
[0014], [0013] lines 8-12) Westing teaches a core strand impregnated, before extrusion, with a
throughput of 3m/min to 9m/min. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the speed of the core strand of
Westing in the method of the combination as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of
ensuring the impregnated core strand is stable until entry into the extrusion, as noted by Westing.
([0015], lines 5-9). Further, one would have used a similar speed for the extrusion step based on the
teaching of Schmidt that that the speed of the first step ((step a), impregnation) is the speed of the
second step ((step b), the co-extrusion of the cover/sheath) ([0025]). While combination (Westing,
Schmidt and Remp do not specifically teach the claimed speed of about 10 meters/min, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to optimize the speed of the core strand impregnation process, and hence the speed of the
sheath extrusion, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of accommodating the diameter
of the impregnated core strand, as noted by Westing ([0015], lines 3-4). The sheath extrusion speed is a
result effective variable based upon speed of the impregnation of the core strand that provides stability
to the core strand. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable
ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,
195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), Further, it 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).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et. al. and in further view of Remp et. al and in further view of NPL (included in the IDS dated 07/01/2024) “Mechanical properties and failure modes of hybrid fiber reinforced polymer composites with a novel liquid thermoplastic resin, Elium®” by Kazemi et. al (herein “Kazemi”).
Regarding Claim 20 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 15.
While Schmidt discloses wherein a polymer is at room temperature in the cured state, [0050],
Schmidt fails to disclose
the sheath material is a blend of polymers which solidify at room temperature;
In a similar endeavor of impregnating carbon fibers with reactive thermoplastic precursors (Page 2 Col 2
Para. 2, Para. 3,) Kazemi discloses the thermoplastic resin can be cured at room temperature (Page 2 Col
2 Para. 4 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymers of Kazemi on the process of Schmidt
as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of the material being post thermoformable and
recyclable, as noted by Kazemi (Page 2 Col 2 Para. 4 lines 2-3).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Schmidt et. al. and in further view of Remp et. al. and in further view of USPGPUB 20170002207A1 by Gerard et. al (herein “Gerard”).
Regarding Claim 21 – Schmidt and Remp in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 15.
Schmidt teaches wherein,
Schmidt discloses that the polymer precursor ( liquid reactive thermoplastic resin ) can be a reactive
monomer with a catalyst [0021] and Remp discloses the same ([0043]), but the combination does not
disclose,
the liquid reactive thermoplastic resin is mainly composed of (meth)acrylic polymer,
(meth)acrylic monomer and organic peroxides.
In an analogous endeavor of impregnating carbon fibers ([0092]) to the forms of non-
wovens/strips/locks (threads) ([0081]), Gerard cites a liquid monomer comprising a methacrylic
polymer, a meth acrylic monomer and at least one initiator to start polymerization ([0045], [0046],
[0047], [0048]. The material provides Newtonian behaviour/non-shear thinning behaviour such that the
viscosity is independent of shear stress ( as one would encounter in pultrusion). Specifically, Example A
where the use of 25 parts by weight PMMA (poly methyl methacrylate) and 75 parts methyl acrylate by
weight, and to the 100 parts, 2 parts by weight of benzoyl peroxide. Gerard discloses the claimed
invention except for use in a pultrusion impregnation process of fibers. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
the materials of Gerard for the liquid reactive thermoplastic resin of the combination, as one would be
motivated to do so to obtain good adhesion between the thermoplastic matrix and the fibrous material
in the form of high tensile break stress perpendicular to the fiber direction, as noted by Gerard ([0018]).
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
