Arevo, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 31, 2021

2020005843 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/854,676 12/26/2017 Chandrashekar Mantha 3019-157us1 1064 148464 7590 08/31/2021 Arevo c/o McGeary Cukor LLC 7 Dumont Place Morristown, NJ 07960-4125 EXAMINER GRAHAM, ANDREW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): jason20@demont.com pto@bciplaw.com usdocket@mcgearycukor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHANDRASHEKAR MANTHA ____________________ Appeal 2020-005843 Application 15/854,676 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non- final rejection of Claims 1–20, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 3; Non-Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed October 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed April 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed February 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Non-Final Action mailed April 10, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), and the Specification filed December 26, 2017 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Arevo, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could Appeal 2020-005843 Application 15/854,676 2 We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a method for depositing fiber-reinforced thermoplastic filament. See Abstract. Claims 1, 5, and 13 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method of depositing a thermoplastic filament that comprises (i) a longitudinal axis L and (ii) a reinforcing fiber that is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis L, the method comprising: depositing a first portion of a segment of the thermoplastic filament in a straight line without twisting the thermoplastic filament around the longitudinal axis L and without twisting the reinforcing fiber around the longitudinal axis L, wherein the first straight portion of the segment has a length of S1 as measured along the longitudinal axis L; and depositing a second portion of the segment of the thermoplastic filament in a first arc of θ1 radians and radius R1 while twisting the second portion and the reinforcing fiber φ1 radians around the longitudinal axis L, wherein the second portion of the segment has a length of S2 as measured along the longitudinal axis L; and depositing a third portion of the segment of the thermoplastic filament in a straight line without twisting the thermoplastic filament around the longitudinal axis L and without twisting the reinforcing fiber around the longitudinal axis L, wherein the third portion of the segment has a length of S3 as measured along the longitudinal axis L; have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-005843 Application 15/854,676 3 wherein the first portion of the segment and the second portion of the segment are contiguous; and wherein the second portion of the segment and the third portion of the segment are contiguous; wherein S1, S2, S3, and R1 are positive real numbers, and wherein θ1 and φ1 are real non-zero numbers. Prior Art Name4 Reference Date Mark US 2019/0009472 A1 Jan. 10, 2019 REJECTIONS5 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 5, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Mark. Non-Final Act. 2–4. 2. Claims 2–4, 6–12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mark. Non-Final Act. 5–8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We find Appellant persuasive with respect to the rejections under §§ 102 and 103. CLAIMS 1, 5, AND 13: ANTICIPATION BY MARK. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: 4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Non-Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-005843 Application 15/854,676 4 depositing a second portion of the segment of the thermoplastic filament in a first arc of θ1 radians and radius R1 while twisting the second portion and the reinforcing fiber φ1 radians around the longitudinal axis L, wherein the second portion of the segment has a length of S2 as measured along the longitudinal axis L. Claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not refer to specific claim language. See Non- Final Act. 2–4. Having generally discussed the disclosure of Mark, the Examiner finds: “[e]ither of these discussions is read as equivalent to performing some amount of a ‘twist’ while going around a curve.” Non- Final Act. 3. Appellant contends: Nowhere does Mark anticipate what claim 1 recites – namely, depositing a second portion of the segment of the thermoplastic filament in a first arc of θ1 radians and radius R1 while twisting the second portion and the reinforcing fiber φ1 radians around the longitudinal axis L of the thermoplastic filament. Appeal Br. 4 (underline omitted). The Examiner finds: Claim 1 produces an “L-shape” having three segments with a curved middle segment. The curved middle segment has at least some “twisting” about the longitudinal axis. There are no further limitations as to the lengths or twists/arc (angles) within claim 1 except that the arc must have a positive “radius” such that a curve is present and the angles must be non-zero real numbers (radians). Ans. 3. Appellant responds Mark fails to disclose the claimed “twist” about a longitudinal axis of a deposited filament. Reply Br. 4–5. Appeal 2020-005843 Application 15/854,676 5 As noted by Appellant, Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “twisting the second portion and the reinforcing fiber φ1 radians around the longitudinal axis L of the thermoplastic filament.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). The Specification explicitly discloses that the deposited filament “is twisted φ radians around the longitudinal axis L, where: φ = 2πN where N is a non- zero integer (e.g., +1, -1, etc.). Spec. 3. We find no disclosure in Mark, nor does the Examiner so direct our attention, of a quantified “twist” equivalent to the claimed “φ = 2πN.” In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claims 1, 5, and 13. CLAIMS 2–4, 6–12, AND 14–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MARK. Appellant contends the dependent claims are patentable in view of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 13. As discussed above, the Examiner fails to direct our attention to a teaching, or disclosure, in Mark of a quantified “twist” equivalent to the claimed “φ = 2πN.” In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 2–4, 6–12, and 14–20. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 13 102(a)(2) Mark 1, 5, 13 2–4, 6–12, 14–20 103 Mark 2–4, 6–12, 14–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED