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 .
1.Claims 2, 6 and 10 are 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 2, last line, the “preferably…” clause renders the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain. Preferable limitations should be properly set forth in separate dependent claims. In claim 6, line 3 and claim 10, line 3, a reference is made to a “T direction” and it needs to be set forth in the claims exactly what this T direction constitutes—ie, the width direction of the conveying path of the conveyor.
2.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) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT Publication WO 2023100702 (see the Abstract and Figs. 1-3) in view of either of Lithuanian document LT-99003 (see 4 in fig. 4) or Italian document MI20051600 (see 3 in Fig. 1).
PCT -702 discloses the basic claimed method for continuously supplying a fiber material—ie, carbon fiber bundle—having a bundle length (see paragraph 0021 of the translation) in the range of 10-60 mm by transporting the fiber material using belt conveyors, the primary reference failing to teach the use of the instant conveyor with an uneven conveying surface and an upwardly sloping section. Each of Lithuanian -003 and Italian -600 disclose fiber processing methods and conveying the fibers using a conveyor with an uneven conveying surface and an upwardly sloping section—see the above noted figures and discussion therefore in the translation of each secondary reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of the primary reference by employing the inclined conveyor of either secondary reference to allow for a control over the amount of fibrous bale or bundle being fed to downstream processing. In particular, see variable speed motor 12 in Figure 3 of Italian -600, the motor controlling the speed of roller 3a which moves the inclined conveyor 3. Also, such would allow for a quantitative fiber supply as set forth in instant claim 1. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would have knowledge of different conveying methods for fibers –bundles and bales—and that the use of well-known conveying equipment as taught in either secondary reference would have been an obvious aspect in the method of the primary reference for additional control over the processing. It is submitted that the inclined conveyors of the secondary references meet instant claims 3 and 4 and that instant claim 2 would have been an obvious aspect dependent on the extent of the uneven surface. The secondary references meet the limitations of instant claims 5-7—see roller 6 in Figure 4 of Lithuanian -003 and rollers 4 and 5 in Figure 1 of Italian -600. The primary reference (see 134 in Fig. 2) discloses a dispersing means that disperses the chopped fibers onto an underlying conveyor. It is also positioned below the discharge end of a hopper and would have been obviously placed below the discharge end of the inclined conveyor in the combination as applied as set forth in instant claim 8. Instant claim 9 is submitted to be conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and a rod in lieu of a roller would have been an obvious feature dependent on the exact equipment available to disperse the fibers. It is submitted that conveyor 140 in Figure 1 of the primary reference would constitute the instant second belt conveyor of claim 10 in the combination as applied. The exact speeds of the conveyors as recited in instant claim 11 would have been an obvious feature to control the passage of the fibrous material through the processing as desired. It is submitted that the limitations of 12 and 13 are taught in the primary reference. Instant claim 14 is surely within the skill level of the art in the primary reference dependent on exact bundle size desired. The primary reference discloses employing carbon fiber bundles to make a carbon fiber mat and it is submitted that the limitations of instant claims 15-20 would have been obvious aspects dependent on the exact structural characteristics desired for the final product. Instant claims 21-23 are shown in the operation of part numerals 41, 51 and 110 and 42, 52 and 120 in Figure 1 of the primary reference –see also the Abstract of the primary reference.
3.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights