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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims filed 1,2,4-8, 11-15, 17, 18 in the reply filed on 9/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Cartwright and Piret refer to coatings that are later disposed within a matrix and therefore do not disclose the spiral shaped matrix described in the claims. However, the matrix in the claims is described as coating and therefore the sizing coatings of Cartwright and Piret can be rightfully considered a matrix; while the matrix in Cartwright and Piret is also disposed in a secondary matrix themselves, this does not disqualify it from reading on the claim. Applicant further argues that the entanglement and birds nest structure of does not teach the specific interlocking loops described in claim 13 and 16, but that is precisely what entanglement is.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner has determined the “a first length” refers to the axial distance from the top of the spiral to the bottom of the spiral, not the total circumferential length of the spiral.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167) in view of Cartwright (US 4755427) in view of Piret (US 6005026).
As to claim 1, Mieck teaches an injection-moldable composite pellet [Abstract], comprising: a matrix comprising a polymer material [claim 8]; and at least one fiber embedded within the matrix, the at least one fiber having a first spiral shape [col 2 line 28-65] and a composition different from that of the matrix, the first spiral shape comprising at least one loop spiraling around an axis [col 5 line 15-36, Abstract, Fig 1].
Mieck does not explicitly state the matrix has a second spiral shape conforming to the first spiral shape matrix is formed as a coating that encapsulates the at least one fiber.
Cartwright teaches helical reinforcing fibers [Abstract, claim 1] wherein the fibers are encapsulated/coated with sizing material and coupling agent [col 5 line 15-27] and thus the coating would have a spiral shape conforming to the first spiral shape. This coating protects the fibers from scratching and improves adhesion [col 5 line 15-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Mieck and had the fibers be coated and encapsulated by a sizing composition such that the coating forms a spiral shape, as suggested by Cartwright, in order to protect the fiber and promote adhesion.
Piret teaches a polymer sizing composition for glass fiber [Abstract] as this polymeric coating prevents breakage and promotes dispersion of the fibers [col 2 line 35-68]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Mieck and utilized a polymeric sizing coating to encapsulate the fibers, as suggested by Piret, in order to protect the fiber and promote its dispersion in molding composition.
As to claim 2, Mieck utilizes continuous fiber, however, notes that discontinuous fibers with shorter length than the granulate are commonly used [col 1 line 9-35]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and utilized the first spiral shape has a first length that extends linearly between a first end and a second end of the fiber along the axis, and wherein the composite pellet has a second length that is greater than the first length, as suggested by Mieck, as this was commonly used in the same field and were known to act as effective reinforcements. Furthermore, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results which is obvious, see MPEP 2143 A and B.
Additionally, as to claim 2, the combination of Mieck, Cartwright and Piret teach the spiral fiber entirely coated with the polymer matrix as explained above, as the spiral fiber is entirely coated/encapsulated with the polymer sizing composition the axial length of the matrix would necessarily be slightly longer than the axial length of the fiber ie by the thickness of the coating.
As to claim 3, Mieck teaches a plurality of the fibers embedded within the matrix, wherein the fibers are distributed evenly throughout the matrix [Fig 2, col 5 line 15-24].
As to claim 4, Mieck teaches the first spiral shape has a first length that extends linearly between a first end and a second end of the fiber along the axis, and wherein the composite pellet has a second length that is the same as the first length [Fig 1].
As to claim 5, Mieck teaches a single fiber (in addition to others) embedded within the matrix [Fig 1]. The term comprising is nonlimiting.
As to claim 7, Mieck teaches at least one fiber comprises fiberglass fiber, carbon fibers, or aramid fibers [col 3 line 10-15].
As to claim 8, Mieck teaches the matrix comprises a thermoplastic polymer material or a thermoset polymer material [claim 8].
As to claim 11, Mieck teaches the polymer material is a first material having a first melting point and the at least one fiber comprises a second material having a second melting point that is greater than the first melting point as glass, aramid and carbon fibers have higher melting points than the thermoplastic materials listed in claim 8 [Claim 8, col 3 line 10-15].
As to claim 12, Mieck teaches the polymer material is a first material having a first tensile strength and the at least one fiber comprises a second material having a second tensile strength that is greater than the first tensile strength as glass, aramid and carbon fibers have higher tensile strength than the thermoplastic materials listed in claim 8 [Claim 8, col 3 line 10-15].
Claim(s) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167) in view of Cartwright (US 4755427) in view of Piret (US 6005026), as applied to claim 1-5, 7-8, 11, 12 above, and in further view of Brady (US 2017/0182700).
As to claim 2, Mieck utilizes continuous fiber, however, notes that discontinuous fibers with shorter length than the granulate are commonly used [col 1 line 9-35]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and utilized the first spiral shape has a first length that extends linearly between a first end and a second end of the fiber along the axis, and wherein the composite pellet has a second length that is greater than the first length, as suggested by Mieck, as this was commonly used in the same field and were known to act as effective reinforcements. Furthermore, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results which is obvious, see MPEP 2143 A and B.
Additionally, Brady teaches the discontinuous fiber within composite pellets [0006-0008, 0009, Abstract] utilizing recycled fibers that are lower cost [0006] and exhibit high strength and stiffness [0017]. As the fibers are chopped and discontinuous these would result in pellets with a longer length than the fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Mieck and utilized the first spiral shape has a first length that extends linearly between a first end and a second end of the fiber along the axis, and wherein the composite pellet has a second length that is greater than the first length, as suggested by Brady, in order to use cheaper recycled fibers that exhibited great strength and stiffness.
As to claim 6, Mieck does not explicitly state that the fiber is recycled.
Brady teaches the discontinuous fiber within composite pellets [0006-0008, 0009, Abstract] utilizing recycled fibers that are lower cost [0006] and exhibit high strength and stiffness [0017]. As the fibers are chopped and discontinuous these would result in pellets with a longer length than the fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Mieck and had the fiber be a recycled fiber, as suggested by Brady, in order to use cheaper recycled fibers that exhibited great strength and stiffness.
Claim(s) 13-15, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167) in view of Isenberg (US 6159589).
As to claim 13, Mieck teaches an injection-moldable composite pellet [Abstract], comprising: a matrix comprising a polymer material [claim 8]; and at least one fiber embedded within the matrix, the at least one fiber having a first spiral shape [col 2 line 28-65] and a composition different from that of the matrix, the first spiral shape comprising at least one loop spiraling around an axis [col 5 line 15-36, Abstract, Fig 1].
Mieck teaches a multiple fibers within the pellet each having their own loop [Fig 1], but does not explicitly state that the loops are interlaced to cause entangling.
Isenberg teaches a fiber reinforced pellets [Abstract, col 2 line 55-col 3 line 15] which improves the parts resistance to mechanical loading and increases part strength [col 3 line 18-col 4 line 10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Mieck and looped together the spirals such that the loops caused entangling, as suggested by Isenberg, in order to provide resistance to mechanical loading and increased part strength.
As to claim 14, Mieck teaches the spiral shape has a diameter that extends linearly along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis and a length that extends linearly between a first end and a second end of the fiber along the first axis, and wherein the length is greater than the diameter [Fig 1].
As to claim 15, Mieck teaches the length is less than or equal to 10 mm as the length of the pellet is 10 mm [col 5 line 10-25].
As to claim 17, Mieck teaches the polymer material is a first material having a first tensile strength and the at least one fiber comprises a second material having a second tensile strength that is greater than the first tensile strength as glass, aramid and carbon fibers have higher tensile strength than the thermoplastic materials listed in claim 8 [Claim 8, col 3 line 10-15].
As to claim 18, Mieck teaches the polymer material is a first material having a first melting point and the at least one fiber comprises a second material having a second melting point that is greater than the first melting point as glass, aramid and carbon fibers have higher melting points than the thermoplastic materials listed in claim 8 [Claim 8, col 3 line 10-15].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
