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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06-26-2026 acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 is rejected because it recites limitation “the periodic profile of FRP composite rebar” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “FRP”. It is not clear what it is.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “the axles” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “a folding beam”. It is not clear that the beam actually foldable or it is just a name
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “the spools” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “the thread twisting” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “the roving reels” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitation “the coil and the layout twisted thread” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitations “characterized by the fact that the thread twisting occurs due to the rotation of the roving reels simultaneously with the coil and the layout twisted thread on spools used for installation in the periodic profile formation unit of the FRP composite rebar line”. It is not clear how the limitations relates to the claim such as this is an intended used of the apparatus or this is a method claim? For the express purpose of an examination on the merits, this limitation is interpreted to be an intended used of the apparatus
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzen et al. (3,782,087) in view of Speakman (3,171,608).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Franzen teaches a device (figs 1-14) for twisting roving threads designed for the periodic profile of FRP composite rebar, including a frame (member 13), flywheels (member 12), electric drives (member 11), a thread layout (member Y) on a smooth shaft (fig 5 annotated above), removable spools (member 27) fixed to the axles (fig 5 annotated above), thread spreader rods (fig 5 annotated above), a folding beam (fig 5 annotated above), characterized by the fact that the thread twisting occurs due to the rotation of the roving reels simultaneously with the coil and the layout twisted thread on spools used for installation in the periodic profile formation unit of the FRP composite rebar line (figs 1-14).
Franzen does not teach a folding beam installed above the spools.
Speakman teaches a machine (fig 1) having a folding beam (member 12) installed above the spools (i.e. package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the machine of Franzen by having a folding beam above the spools, as taught by Speakman, in order to have the yarn would smoother. In addition, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the beam must be above the spools; therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights