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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2023/0211537), hereinafter Liao.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11, Liao discloses a method of manufacturing a reinforced plastic extruded part comprising: (a) providing plastic pellets (see Fig. 1, at the unlabeled hopper), wherein a raw material of the plastic pellets includes 10-99% of long fiber thermoplastic ‘masterbatch’ (par. 0030 – the term “masterbatch” is known in the art to be a pelletized plastic; this can be verified with a quick Google search), and the long fibers are glass or carbon fibers having a length of 6 mm to 25 mm (uses the same language as instant claims 1 and 2 in par. 0030); and
(b) forming the plastic pellets into a reinforced plastic extruded part by a single-screw extrusion operation (see par. 0021-0022; Figs. 1-2 showing the screw 25 within the extruder 20; par. 0042), wherein the single-screw extrusion operation is performed under a screw L/D ratio of 26 (par. 0043) and a screw compression ratio of 2.0-4.0 (par. 0028).
Liao does not explicitly disclose that the amount of long fibers is as required in the claims, or that the screw compression ratio is as claimed, instead describing values that overlap with the claimed values.
However, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified that the screw compression ratio is between 3 and 4 instead of the disclosed values of 2 and 4, as well as the amount of fibers present in the long fiber thermoplastic masterbatch.
Regarding claim 6, Liao discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the raw material includes 1-90% by weight of a thermoplastic resin (par. 0030), overlapping with the claimed range of 40-99%.
However, it has been held that where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified that the resin is included in a percentage as is required in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Liao discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that the thermoplastic polymer is polypropylene, or polyamide (par. 0030).
Regarding claim 10, Liao discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that the raw material includes a colorant (par. 0033).
Regarding claims 12-13, Liao discloses the subject matter of claim 11, and these limitations are considered met by the performed steps of claim 1. Additionally, with respect to the length of the tube, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected any length for a given application/use of the extruded product.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8-9 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 2023/0211537) as applied to claims 2/7 above, and further in view of Donners et al. (US 2022/0235185), hereinafter Donners.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 8-9, Liao discloses the subject matter of claims 2/7, but does not appear to disclose that the fiber surface includes a sizing agent, or the specific maleic anhydride/ethylene copolymer combination as required in claims 8-9.
However, Donners, as part of a process of producing similar pellets (Donners, par. 0094), where the length of the fiber included is the length of the pellet (end of par. 0094), includes a silane coupling agent (Donners, par. 0029 – as in claims 4-5). Donners further describes the use of an ethylene containing copolymer, used with polypropylene (Donners, par. 0057) and a maleic anhydride (par. 0115) as in claims 8-9. Donners further explains that the coupling agents are used to improve adhesion between the fiber reinforcements and the matrix polymer of the material (Donners, par. 0029). Accordingly, in order to likewise improve adhesion between the fiber and the polymer, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that there is a coupling agent and the polymer combination described in Donners, in the process of Liao above, as is required in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
