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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a composite pellet, classified in B32B15/14.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method of forming composite pellets, classified in B29B9/14.
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the pellet could be formed by comminution or granulation.
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 require searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
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.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Marshall Brown on 6/25/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Unclear if the single fiber is in addition to or part of the at least one fiber.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mieck (US 6548167).
As to claim 1 and 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].
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 and 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].
As to claim 12 and 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 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].
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167) in 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) 2, 9, 10 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 claims 9 and 10, 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, 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.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mieck (US 6548167) in view of Isenberg (US 6159589).
As to claim 16 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights