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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on October 16, 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewel in view of Petrovic as set forth in the office action filed July 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “the flat-cross-section glass fiber is coated with a composition containing a surfactant, and amount of the composition is at a proportion of 0.1 to 2.0% by mass…”. Applicant cites paragraph [0088] of the specification as filed for support for the claimed limitation. The cited text of the specification teaches that the fiber may be coated with a composition containing a lubricant, a surfactant or the like, in addition to such a resin or silane coupling agent. That is, the composition in the specification requires a resin or a silane coupling agent in addition to the surfactant. Therefore, the broader language of the claim, i.e. any composition with a surfactant, does not appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed and appears to constitute new matter.
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 – 5 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “the flat-cross-section glass fiber is coated with a composition containing a surfactant, and amount of the composition is at a proportion of 0.1 to 2.0% by mass with respect to the mass of the flat-cross-section glass fiber in the state not coated with the composition.” This renders the claim indefinite because the claim requires the amount of the composition, not the amount of the coating. Therefore, it is unclear if the claimed amount of the composition is meant to refer to the amount of the surfactant in the composition, the amount of the composition in the coating, the amount of coating on the fibers, or some other amount.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reading on any of the above claim limitations. Examiner also notes that the claim is missing an article in front of the word “amount.”
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewel (US20170275459A1) in view of Petrovic (Petrovic, Jelena et al. “Tension Mechanical Properties of Recycled Glass-Epoxy Composite Material.” Acta Periodica Technologica. 43(2012):189 – 198.) and Nukui (WO2020137004A1, using US20210087344A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 and 2, Hewel teaches:
Flat-cross-section glass fiber comprising a plurality of flat-cross-section glass filaments each having a cross-section in a flat shape ([0057]: “The glass fibres (B) can have different cross-sectional areas, wherein glass fibres of circular cross-section (round fibres) and of non-circular cross-section (flat fibres) are preferable.”)
The cross-section having a major axis in a range of 20.0 – 35.0 µm and a minor axis in a range of 5.0 – 10.0 µm ([0059]: “A further characterizing feature of the flat glass fibres used consists in that the length of the major cross-section axis preferably lies in the range from 6 to 40 μm, in particular in the range from 15 to 30 μm and the length of the minor cross-section axis in the range from 3 to 20 μm, in particular in the range from 4 to 10 μm.”)
The cross-section having an irregular shape ratio R, being a ratio of the major axis to the minor axis (major axis/minor axis) in a range of more than 3.0 and 5.0 or less ([0059]: “In the case of the flat glass fibres, namely glass fibres of non-circular cross-section, those with a dimensional ratio of the major cross-section axis to the minor cross-section axis standing perpendicular thereto of more than 2.5, preferably in the range from 2.5 to 6, in particular in the range from 3 to 5 are preferably used.”)
The flat-cross-section glass fiber has a packing rate P, being a ratio of a cross-sectional area of each flat-cross-section filament to an area of a rectangle circumscribing a cross-section of the flat-cross-section glass filament (cross-sectional area of flat-cross-section filament/area of rectangle circumscribing cross-section of flat-cross-section glass filament), in a range of 77.0 to 84.0% ([0059]: “At the same time, the flat glass fibres have as high a packing density as possible, i.e. the glass cross-sectional area fills an imaginary rectangle surrounding the glass fibre cross-section as exactly as possible to at least 70%, preferably at least 80%.”)
The irregular shape ratio R and the packing rate P satisfy formula (1) and formula (2)
PNG
media_image1.png
36
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
34
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Hewel teaches a shape ratio between 2.5 and 6, and a packing ratio of at least 70%. Using the above formula, this results in a range of values from 56 – 93, which overlaps with the claimed range.)
Hewel teaches values for the major axis, minor axis, shape ratio, and packing rate that overlap with the claimed range. As calculated above, the ranges for the shape ratio and packing rate taught by Hewel overlap with the values of formula (1) and formula (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fibers with the claimed dimensions and properties because they overlap with the values taught by Hewel. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Hewel teaches that the composition of the glass fibers can be E glass ([0061]). Hewel does not specifically teach:
The flat-cross-section glass fiber comprises SiO2 in a range of 52.0 to 62.0% by mass, Al2O3 in a range of 10.0 to 20.0% by mass, and CaO in a range of 16.7 to 28.1% by mass with respect to a total amount of the flat-cross-section glass fiber
Petrovic teaches E-glass-fibers have good mechanical, hydrothermal and electrical properties and contain the composition
PNG
media_image3.png
214
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Page 191, Paragraph 2 and Table 1). This composition contains SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO ranges that overlap with those claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an E-glass with the claimed composition because Hewel teaches that E-glass are predictably suitable for use as the flat fibers ([0061]). and Petrovic teaches that E-glasses are understood to contain the claimed oxides in the claimed amounts (Table 1). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Hewel does not teach:
The flat-cross section glass fiber is coated with a composition containing a surfactant and the amount of the composition is at a proportion of 0.1 to 2.0% by mass with respect to the mass of the flat-cross-section glass fiber in the state not coated with the composition
Nukui teaches flat cross sectional shaped glass fibers (Abstract). The glass fibers may be made of E glass ([0044]). These are structurally and compositionally similar to the fibers of Hewel. Nukui further teaches that the glass fiber may be coated with a resin composition including a surfactant at a rate of 0.1 to 2.0% by mass based on the mass of the glass fiber without the resin composition ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to add a surfactant coating to the glass fibers of the prior art combination and to provide the surfactant coating in the claimed amount because Nukui teaches that the claimed coating and amount were known as predictably suitable coating compositions and amounts for use on flat cross sectional shaped glass fibers made of E glass (Abstract, [0044 – 0046]).
As per claims 3 and 5, Hewel teaches:
A glass-fiber-reinforced resin composition comprising the flat-cross-section glass fiber in a resin composition (Abstract: “A polyamide moulding compound consisting of the following components (A) – (E): (A)…. At least one partially crystalline, partially aromatic polyamide… (B)… fibrous reinforcing materials.” & [0055]: “The component (B) here can preferably be constituted of glass fibers.”)
As per claim 4, Hewel teaches:
A glass-fiber-reinforced resin molded product formed from the glass-fiber-reinforced resin composition ([0010]: “The moulding compound should have good dimensional stability, which is fulfilled for the intended applications in the automotive sector”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789