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 Group I, claims 1-10, and Species A, Figs. 2-11, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 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)).
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/01/2025. Claims 8-9 are canceled with the response.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an assister which assists in contact between the resin melted by the heating cylinder and the long fiber fed into the heating cylinder” in claim 1. The specification provides corresponding structure for an “assister,” including adhesive sprayers ([0024], 21 in Figs. 2-4), a hot melt ejector ([0033], 51 in Fig. 6), a compressed air ejector ([0038], 91 in Fig. 9), a guide plate ([0041], 101 in Fig. 10), or a combination of these elements ([0049]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes that the examined claims are directed to a device/apparatus. Recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115. The claimed apparatus requires at most structure capable of performing the intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KraussMaffei Technologies GmbH, DE 202017100255 U1 (“KraussMaffei”).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, KraussMaffei discloses an injection molding device (Fig. 1, [0010], [0023]) for fiber-reinforced resin (for fiber-reinforced plastic parts, [0004]), comprising:
A heating cylinder (cylinder 4 with heating elements 19, Fig. 1, [0023]) for melting resin (in which plastic material from filling opening 8 is to be melted, [0023]);
A screw (screw 5, Fig. 1, [0023]) which is inserted in the heating cylinder (Fig. 1);
A resin feeder (filling opening 8 for the supply of plastic material, Fig. 1, [0023]) for feeding the resin into the heating cylinder (for the supply of plastic material to the cylinder, [0023]);
A long fiber feeder (fiber feeding device 13, Figs. 1-5, [0024]) for feeding a long fiber (fibers 10, Figs. 1-2) into the heating cylinder (into cylinder 4, Figs. 1-5); and
An assister (part of fiber feeding device 13 including bottom plate shown in Figs. 4-5, see below) which assists in contact between the resin melted by the heating cylinder and the long fiber fed into the heating cylinder (which functions as a structural guide/barrier for fibers entering cylinder, Figs. 4-5, and assists in contact by assisting in entry of the fibers to the melt in the cylinder),
Wherein the long fiber feeder is a feed box (fiber feeding device 13 is structurally equivalent to a box, Figs. 2-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
701
1352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 1, wherein the long fiber feeder is provided to a downstream side of the resin feeder (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 1, wherein the long fiber feeder feeds a plurality of the long fibers into the heating cylinder (can feed plurality of fiber strands/rovings 10, Fig. 2, [0012], [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 7, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 1, wherein the assister guides the long fiber fed into the heating cylinder by a guide plate (Figs. 4-5, see above, bottom plate section of fiber feeding device 13).
Regarding claim 10, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 1, wherein a conveying member for conveying the long fiber is provided to the long fiber feeder (intake channels 14, Fig. 2, [0024]-[0025], along which fibers are conveyed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KraussMaffei, DE 202017100255 U1, as applied to claim 3, in view of Mortazavi, US 20080075943 A1.
Regarding claim 4, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 3. KraussMaffei does not disclose the assister sprays adhesive to the plurality of the long fibers fed into the heating cylinder.
In the analogous art of injection molding a fiber-reinforced matrix material (Abstract, Figs. 2-3), Mortazavi discloses an injection molding device (Fig. 3) including an input 26 for feeding a reinforcement 8 to the extruder 22 (Fig. 3, [0023]). Mortazavi teaches including a spray nozzle 14 for spraying a coating on the reinforcement 8 prior to its introduction to the extruder 22, e.g., for changing a diameter of the reinforcement 8 (Fig. 2, [0022]). A spray nozzle that sprays a coating is capable of spraying an adhesive, and the coating disclosed by Mortazavi is an adhesive at least in that it adheres to the fiber reinforcement 8 (Fig. 2).
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 feeding arrangement of KraussMaffei to include a spray nozzle for spraying an adhesive to the plurality of long fibers fed into the heating cylinder in order to provide the capability of applying a coating to the fibers prior to their introduction to the extruder, as taught by Mortazavi.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KraussMaffei, DE 202017100255 U1, as applied to claim 3, in view of Scheuring, US 5879602 A.
Regarding claim 5, KraussMaffei discloses the injection molding device of claim 3. KraussMaffei does not disclose the assister ejects a hot-melt adhesive to a part of the plurality of the long fibers fed into the heating cylinder.
In the analogous art, Scheuring discloses a device for producing long-fiber reinforced profiles (Fig. 5), wherein a hot-melt plastics matrix is ejected to a part of the plurality of long fibers being fed into a heating cylinder (fibrous strands 10, 10’ are pre-impregnated by impregnating head 35 with plastics matrix 36 that has been melted in extruder 27, Fig. 5, col. 7, lines 24-34). Scheuring teaches that pre-impregnating the fiber strands before their entry to the extruder results in the strands being mixed very gently into the plastics matrix and results in a long resulting fiber length (col. 4, lines 5-20).
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 feeding arrangement of KraussMaffei to include an ejector structure capable to eject a hot-melt adhesive to a part of the plurality of the long fibers fed into the heating cylinder in order to provide the capability of pre-impregnating the fiber strands prior to their introduction into the extruder for gentler mixing and a longer resulting fiber length, as taught by Scheuring.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KraussMaffei, DE 202017100255 U1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kanuteh et al., US 20180194909 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Scheuring discloses the injection molding device of claim 1. Scheuring does not disclose the assister ejects compressed air onto the long fiber fed into the heating cylinder.
In the analogous art of molding long fiber-reinforced polymer materials (Abstract, [0002]), Kanuteh discloses configuring a feeding die for long fibers (Fig. 2) with gas jets for ejecting compressed air in order to help uniformly spread a bundle or tow of individual fibers and thereby assist in subsequent impregnation and achieve uniform distribution of strength properties in the ribbon ([0031]).
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 feeding arrangement of KraussMaffei to include an ejector structure to eject compressed air onto the long fiber fed into the heating cylinder in order to provide the capability of spreading individual fibers of a strand/roving to assist in subsequent contacting of the fibers with the plastic melt and for uniform distribution of strength properties, as taught by Kanuteh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190152104 A1, Baba discloses an injection molding device with a long fiber feeder and a reaction aid feeder for the long fiber (Fig. 1A).
US 20020098287 A1, US 20020089082 A1, Brussel discloses long fiber reinforced thermoplastic molding devices including a discharge nozzle 13 for applying a molten plastic film 11 to fibers in the feed opening to the cylinder/screw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754