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 .
Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed July 21, 2026 are acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges amended claim 16, 19, 27, 29, 51, 55 and 61.
Examiner acknowledges cancelled claims 1-15. 17-18, 20, 22-25, 28, 30-49 and 60.
The rejection of claims 19, 21, 26-27 and 29 under 35 U.S> 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 16, 19, 21, 26 and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belpaire et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2011/0206890 in view of Kato, U.S. Pre Grant Publication 20140079908 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 16, 19, 21, 26027, 29-30 and 50-61 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,043,709 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 29, 21, 26-27, 29, 50-59 and 61 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,042,709 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in both the present application and the patented reference recite
A device comprising: i. a carrier; and ii. a fibrous insert having at least one elongated fiber arrangement of a plurality of ordered fibers wherein the fibrous insert is joined to the carrier by an interface portion, and the fibrous insert extends from an upper surface to a lower surface of the carrier; and wherein the at least one elongated fiber arrangement is distributed in a thermoplastic material. (see claim 16 of instant application and claims 1, 14 and 17 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the at least one elongated fiber arrangement includes a material that is the same as the thermoplastic material. (see claim 19 of the instant application and claim 2 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the at least one elongated fiber arrangement is a woven fiber arrangement (see claim 21 of the instant application and claim 3 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the plurality of ordered fibers are glass fibers, mineral fibers, carbon fibers, polymeric fibers, or any combination thereof (see claim 26 of the instant application and claim 4 of 12,043,709).
The device wherein the thermoplastic material is an epoxy-based material (see claim 27 of the instant application and claim 5 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the fibrous insert is visible from both a top and a bottom of the carrier (see claim 50 of the instant application and claim 18 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein an outer surface of the fibrous insert is positioned on top of, and is co-extensive with, an outer surface of the thermoplastic (see claim 29 of the instant application and claim 16 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the fibrous insert is inserted into the carrier and only an upper surface of the fibrous insert is exposed (see claim 51 of the instant application and claim 19 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the carrier includes ribs extending in a transverse direction relative to a longitudinal axis of the carrier (see claim 52 of the instant application and claim 6 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the fibrous insert is positioned between the ribs (see claim 53 of the instant application and claim 7 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the fibrous insert is recessed from an outer surface of the carrier (see claim 54 of the instant application and claim 8 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein an activatable material is disposed over at least a portion of the carrier free of contact (see claim 55 of the instant application and claim 9 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the activatable material is free of contact with the fibrous insert (see claim 56 of the instant application and claim 10 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the fibrous insert includes a plurality of layers each having an elongated fiber arrangement oriented in a different manner (see claim 57 of the instant application and claim 11 of 12,043,709).
The device wherein the device includes a polymeric material located in between and in direct planar contact with both the carrier and the fibrous insert (see claim 58 of the instant application and claim 12 of US 12,043,709).
The device wherein the polymeric material is a film (see claim 59 of the instant application and claim 13 of 12,043,709).
The device wherein a sealant material is disposed on at least a portion of the carrier (see claim 61 of the instant application and claim 15 of US 12,043,709).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended claim 16 to recite “wherein the carrier is a pultruded thermoplastic epoxy material; and wherein the carrier is free of knit lines”. The claims in U.S. Patent Number 12,403,709 read on the claims in the present application as nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
