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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a method of securing an end terminal to a pultruded solid carbon rod, classified in CPC B29C 70/20.
II. Claim 10, drawn to a splitting device, classified in CPC B26D 7/2628.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus, Group II, can be practiced by another and materially different process such as a method of stripping fiber optic cable. Alternatively, the method, Group I, can be practiced manually without the use of the splitting tool.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The inventions have acquired an examination burden that includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. However, in the present application, the inventions require a different field of search and consequently the search is not coextensive.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Talivaldis Cepuritis on June 8, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Rejoinder
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Line 6, the extra recitation of the word “than” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt (PGPub 2003/0010966, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘966) in view of Sjostedt (PGPub 2017/0241211, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘211).
Regarding Claim 1, Sjostedt ‘966 teaches a method for securing an end terminal to a solid carbon rod (Abstract; [0045]- discussing carbon fiber rods) which comprises:
a) providing a solid carbon rod (Fig. 2- bundle of composite rods 60);
b) splitting a predetermined length end portion of the pultruded solid carbon rod along a longitudinal axis of the solid carbon rod into a branched end portion thereof ([0057]- splaying the end of the bundle of composite rods 60) constituted by relatively smaller solid carbon rod portions ([0057]- discussing individual composite rods), each said solid carbon rod portion having a cross-sectional size of less than 5 mm2 ([0055]- example wherein each composite rod has a diameter of 0.97mm (cross sectional area of π*(0.97mm)2/4≈0.74mm2); [0063]- example wherein each composite rod has a diameter of 1mm (cross sectional area of π*(1mm)2/4≈0.79mm2));
c) inserting said branched end portion into an end terminal (Fig. 11- step 3); and
d) introducing a solidifiable liquid-phase material into the end terminal in an amount sufficient to fill available space within the end terminal (Fig. 11- step 4).
Sjostedt ‘966 does not specify the solid carbon rod is pultruded.
Sjostedt ‘211 teaches an alternative method of producing a terminal fitting on composite tension member (Abstract) wherein the individual composite strands are pultruded [0029] and subsequently encapsulated in a bundle [0030] in order to produce a lightweight corrosion and fatigue resistant rod [0029] that is easily handleable and able to be coiled [0030].
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 method of Sjostedt ‘966 to include an encapsulated bundle of individually pultruded carbon fiber rods as taught by Sjostedt ‘211 with reasonable expectation of success to produce a lightweight corrosion and fatigue resistant rod [0029] that is easily handleable and able to be coiled [0030].
Regarding Claim 5, 8, and 9, Sjostedt ‘966 further teaches the resin material is an epoxy resin [0066] thus meeting the instant limitations of the liquid-phase material is an epoxy resin, the liquid-phase material is a thermosetting adhesive (Examiner notes epoxy is a thermosetting polymer), the liquid-phase material is a synthetic resin (Examiner notes epoxy is a synthetic resin).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Sjostedt ‘966 further teaches examples wherein the individual composite rods have a diameter of 0.97mm [0055] or 1mm [0063] thus the cross-sectional area of each rod is π*(0.97mm)2/4≈0.74mm2 or π*(1mm)2/4≈0.79mm2)), respectively, thus meeting the instant limitations of said cross-sectional size is less than 2 mm2 and 1 mm2.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt (PGPub 2003/0010966, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘966) in view of Sjostedt (PGPub 2017/0241211, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘211) and Sjostedt (PGPub 2017/0122039, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘039).
Regarding Claim 2, Sjostedt ‘966 and Sjostedt ‘211 do not specify the splitting is carried out using spaced blades.
Sjostedt ‘039 teaches an alternative method of producing a terminal fitting on composite tension member (Abstract) wherein the individual strands are split using spaced blades (Fig. 1- showing cruciform insert 100; Fig. 2- showing strands split and wrapped around cruciform insert 100; [0052]- strands are divided into 4 bundles and wrapped around the cruciform insert) in order to minimize pin failure by reducing stress on the components [0011].
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 combination of Sjostedt ‘966 and Sjostedt ‘211 to include splitting the individual strands using spaced blades as taught by Sjostedt ‘039 with reasonable expectation of success to minimize pin failure by reducing stress on the components [0011].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt (PGPub 2003/0010966, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘966) in view of Sjostedt (PGPub 2017/0241211, hereinafter Sjostedt ‘211) and Campbell et al (PGPub 2019/0178342).
Regarding Claim 3, Sjostedt ‘966 and Sjostedt ‘211 do not specify following step c). part of the branched end portion extending over the end terminal affixed thereon is removed.
Campbell teaches an alternative method of producing a terminal fitting on composite tension member (Abstract) wherein filaments are secured to an auxiliary anchor [0254] and the auxiliary anchor and exposed filaments are removed after the end terminal is affixed [0255] in order to straighten and align the filaments through the terminal [0254]-[0255].
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 combination of Sjostedt ‘966 and Sjostedt ‘211 to include removing filaments extending over the end terminal after the end terminal is affixed as taught by Campbell with reasonable expectation of success to straighten and align the filaments through the terminal [0254]-[0255].
Regarding Claim 4, Sjostedt ‘966 teaches the liquid-phase material is resin [0066] and discloses epoxy as an example [0066] but does not specify the liquid-phase material is a thermoplastic.
Campbell teaches an alternative method of producing a terminal fitting on composite tension member (Abstract) wherein the setting compound is any substance, including thermosets and thermoplastics, that transitions from liquid to solid over time [0007] and a thermoplastic setting compound could be preferable [0257] in order to achieve fast solidification [0257].
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 combination of Sjostedt ‘966 and Sjostedt ‘211 to include a thermoplastic setting compound as taught by Campbell with reasonable expectation of success to achieve fast solidification [0257] thus meeting the instant limitation of the liquid-phase material is a thermoplastic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas (US Pat. 6886484) teaches an alternate method of producing a composite tension rod wherein the rod is a monolithic pultruded carbon fiber rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 6/10/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights