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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." These references are located at:
Page 2, line 25;
Page 4, line 4;
Page 4, line 27;
Page 11, line 18;
Page 14, line 23-24;
Page 15; lines 25-27;
Page 19, line 2;
Page 26, lines 17-18;
Page 28, lines 25-26;
Page 28, lines 29-30;
Page 29, lines 5-6;
Page 38, line 13; and
Page 39, line 6.
Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of claim 1 should be amended to say “and steps v) to vi) are conducted under elevated pressure by pressing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a comma after “polyphenylene sulfides” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a “the” before “reinforcing fibers B”. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness, but appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a comma after “interval heating press” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the last Figure should be labeled “Fig. 3”, it currently has not label and the specification refences a third figure.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one-dimensional production feed” of claim 1, the presses of claim 8 (which would also show how the matrix is added to fabric in the press), and the roll or drum of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the wording used in step iv), which states (with emphasis added):
“iv) introducing the thermoplastic molding composition A that serves as matrix M into the at least one fabric F by embedding the thermoplastic molding composition A into the reinforcing fibers B by means of a relative movement in which the reinforcing fibers B remain immobile apart from a continuous or discontinuous one-dimensional production feed, and consolidating this composite composed of at least one fabric F and the matrix”
The first problem is what is moving via the one-dimensional production feed? Is it molding composition or the reinforcing fibers? The second problem is what is meant by “one-dimensional production feed” in terms of what is moving? If the fibers are moving via the one-dimensional production feed, then there is an antecedent basis issue, since the fibers are part of a woven fabric per step i). Therefore the fibers could not be moving via a one-dimensional production feed, the fibers which are part of a fabric would be moving via a two-dimensional production feed. If the molding composition is moving via the one-dimensional production feed, then how is a one-dimensional movement of material causing the fibers to move in a continuous or discontinuous manner? Is the material coming straight out of a nozzle or sprue? The only thing disclosed that would help alleviate the issue is found in claims 8 and 14 which appear to show that the fabric is moving in a production feed direction in a continuous or discontinuous manner.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrasing used in “steps iv) to vi) are conducted at a temperature of at least 150°C.” The issue is when this is viewed in terms of step vi): the cooling is conducted at a temperature of at least 150°C. Is the cooling started from a temperature of at least 150°C, is the cooling going down to a temperature of at least 150°C, or is the cooling maintaining a temperature of at least 150°C? The specification only states that cooling occurs and that steps iv) to vi) are conducted at a temperature of at least 150°C, thus there is no guidance as to what is occurring. Another issue when this is viewed in terms of step vi), is that are all other possible additional process steps performed at a temperature of at least 150°C?
The same issue with further processing steps occur for the next phrase “steps v) to vi) by pressing under elevated pressure.” Anything after cooling is then an additional process step. As written once the cooling is completed (which is under pressure), anything after that automatically invokes the optional clause, which them means anything after cooling is still under the elevated pressure. So picking up the product to package would have to be performed under elevated pressure? This would even mean the pressure is never released, since any step after the indefinite cooling is performed under pressure. The disclosure does not alleviate this issue.
Claim 5 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear what the metes and bounds of claim 5 are supposed to be when claim 1 already contains claim 5. Claim 1 states “a weave composed of reinforcing fibers B treated with silane size”. Claim 5 states “reinforcing fibers B treated with a silane size are used.” There is no difference between the two limitations
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a silane size". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this a different silane size or the same silane size already claimed in claim 1?
Claim 7 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear, as written, whether the “silanol groups” are a further limitation (in terms of antecedent basis) of the previously claimed “silane size”?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a chemically reactive functionality" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this in addition to the same feature found in claim 1 or in addition to?
Regarding claim 8, the term "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This region could be seen as having inherent antecedent basis, but for the sake of clarity of record, either a statement regarding the inherent antecedent basis or a correction is needed.
Claim 13 is not physically possible; unless the fiber is at absolute zero there is always spatial movement, no matter how small the movement is. It appears claim 13 is trying to say that when the molding composition is introduced the strain on the fibers prevents any movement of the fibers caused by the introduction of the molding composition.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the region of application of temperature and pressure" in lines 4, 5, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 never states where the temperature and pressure are applied, thus there is no antecedent basis for this region.
Claim 15 is seen as vague and indefinite since it contains the same issues as claim 1 with regards to the temperature and pressure.
Regarding claim 15, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 is seen as vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the additive C is a requirement or still optional.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 states “a weave composed of reinforcing fibers B treated with silane size”. Claim 5 states “reinforcing fibers B treated with a silane size are used.” There is no difference between the two limitations, thus claim 5 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. Claim 13 is not physically possible; unless the fiber is at absolute zero there is always spatial movement, no matter how small the movement is.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art related to resin fabric composite processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights