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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-16, drawn to glass fiber board.
Group II, claims 20, drawn to an electronic device.
Group III, claims 21-24, drawn to a method of making glass-fiber board.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the glass-fiber board, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Chien and Bayraktar (See art-based rejections herein below).
During a telephone conversation with Applicant’s Representative, John Cao, on September 28, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CHIEN (US20150273794).
Claim 1: Chien teaches a fiber (filaments) structure comprising at least two filament layers disposed in a stacking manner, wherein each filament layer comprises a plurality of fibers (i.e. filaments) arranged in an interlacing manner, each fiber layer has a direction where the fibers extend along the fiber layer and another direction at intervals along the first direction of the fiber layer, and a taggering angle between at least two fiber layers is between 0 degree and 90 degrees (Chien, para. 0016; Figures 1-2). The fibers (filaments) are glass fibers (Chien, claim 2). Alternatively, the filaments of Chien including resin, carbon and glass fibers (claim 2); therefore, it would have been obvious to select glass fibers as the materials for the fibers (i.e. filaments).
Claims 2-5: Chien teaches that each layer of filament sheets comprising a linear pattern having a unitary orientation which is different from orientation(s) of other layer(s) of filament sheet. The orientations of the linear patterns within the at least two layers of filament sheet could be at angles in horizontal plane ranged from 0 to +180° adjusted in
accordance with manufacturing needs by rotating either clockwise or counter-clockwise in horizontal plane, e.g., 0o, 45°, -45°, -60°, 90°, and any other angles of the orientation in the range 0° to +180° (Chien, para. 0016).
Claim 6: Chien teaches that the fibers of each fiber layer include glass fibers and fibers of all layers can be the same or different (Chien, claims 2 and 3), thus the claim is either anticipated or would have been prime facie obvious.
Claims 7-9: Chien teaches the fiber layers comprising one or more composite glass fiber layers having different toughness and/or strength (para. 0017). Therefore, it would have been anticipated or would have been obvious as a matter of choice to arrange adjiacent fiber layers with fibers having different strength or toughness.
Claim 9: Chien teaches two adjacent layers of fibers having different orientations of the linear patterns (Chien, para. 0017) which would result in the two non-adjacent layers, e.g. the first and the third fiber layers to have uniform intervals along the same direction.
Claim 10: Chien teaches the fibers include a carbon fiber (claim 2) and thus it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select carbon fiber for the third fibers.
Claim 11: Chien teaches the fibers include a glass fiber (claim 2) and thus it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select glass fiber for the second and four fibers.
Claims 12-16: Chien teaches two adjacent layers of fibers having different orientations of the linear patterns to arrive at different toughness and strength in multiple directions (Chien, para. 0017) ; therefore, it would have been obvious to arrange and select the materials and directions of each fiber layer as claimed through routine experimentations to arrive at optimal results .
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bayraktar (US-2018/0363175).
Claim 1: Bayraktar teaches a 3D-fiber reinforced structure comprising a plurality of glass fiber layers disposed in a stacking manner (Bayraktar, para. 0025-0027), wherein each glass fiber layer comprises a plurality of first fibers and a plurality
of second fibers, the plurality of first fibers and the plurality of second fibers are disposed in an interlacing manner, each glass fiber layer has a first direction and a second direction, the plurality of first fibers extend along the first direction of the glass fiber layer and are arranged at intervals along the second direction of the glass fiber layer, the plurality of second fibers extend along the second direction of the glass fiber layer and are arranged at intervals along the first direction of the glass fiber layer, and a helical staggering angle between at least two glass fiber layers is greater
than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees (Bayraktar, para. 0007, 0025 and Figures 2, 4-6). In the alternative, because Bayraktar teaches the fibers including glass fibers among other materials (para. 0025), it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select fiberglass or polyethylene glass fibers as taught by Bayraktar.
Claims 2-5: The helical staggering angle between any two glass fiber layers is between 0 to 90 degrees or 0 degrees to 45 degrees (Bayraktar, para. 0037-0038 and Figures 4-7).
Claim 6: Bayraktar teaches that the plurality of the fibers include glass fibers (Bayraktar, para. 0025).
Claims 7-9: Bayraktar teaches the fiber layers comprising one or more composite glass fiber layers having different toughness and/or strength (para. 0038-0047). Therefore, it would have been anticipated or would have been obvious as a matter of choice to arrange adjacent fiber layers with fibers having different strength or toughness.
Claim 9: Bayraktar teaches two non-adjacent layers, e.g. the first and the third fiber layers having uniform intervals along the same direction (See Figures 4-6).
Claim 10: Bayraktar teaches the fibers include a carbon fiber (para. 0025 and 0040) and thus it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select carbon fiber for the third fibers.
Claim 11: Bayraktar teaches the fibers include a glass fiber (para. 0025) and thus it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select glass fiber for the second and four fibers.
Claims 12-16: Bayraktar teaches layers of fibers having different orientations of the linear patterns and staggering angles to arrive at different toughness and strength in multiple directions (Bayraktar, para. 0037-0038; claims 1-12; and Figures 8-10) ; therefore, it would have been obvious to arrange and select the materials and directions of each fiber layer as claimed through routine experimentations to arrive at optimal results .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
