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
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) 6-10, 12-13 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU-2551514 to Bero in view of US Pub No. 2011/0298152 to Sutter.
Regarding Claims 6-10, 12-13 and 17-21
Bero teaches a continuous-fiber meltblown nonwoven fabric comprising thermoplastic fibers having a diameter between 0.5 and 70 micrometers, which overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 20 microns (Bero, abstract, page 7, lines 20-48). Bero teaches that the fabric may be overlaid and melted to bond to reinforcement fibers such as carbon fibers (Id., claims 1-23). Bero teaches that the arrangement of the composite may include the nonwoven fabric as the outer layers on either side of the reinforcement fiber layer (Id.). Bero teaches that the composite may include a matrix resin such as epoxy resin impregnated into the fiber substrate (Id., page 12, lines 3-17, page 20, lines 10-25). Bero teaches that the nonwoven may comprise a basis weight equal to or lower than 30 grams per square meter (Id., table 1, claim 16, part A: tape making).
Bero teaches that the thermoplastic fibers may be formed from phenoxy resin, but does not teach that the thermoplastic fibers possess the claimed weight and glass transition temperature. However, Sutter teaches a continuous-fiber (monofilament, multifilament) nonwoven fabric (fleece, felt, mat) comprising fibers containing an amorphous thermoplastic phenoxy resin as a main component, wherein the resin has a weight-average molecular weight in a range from 10,000 to 100,000 such as 52,000 and a glass transition temperature equal to or lower than 100 degrees Celsius such as 92 degrees Celsius (Sutter, abstract, paragraph [0018]-[0020], [0056]). Sutter teaches that the fibers may be melted and may fix the reinforcing fibers (Id.). Sutter teaches that the phenoxy fibers are especially compatible with glass or carbon reinforcement fibers and epoxy matrix resins and provide an improvement in adhesion of reinforcing fibers to matrix components and bending strength by 12% (Id., paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite fabric and to include as the thermoplastic fibers, the phenoxy resin fibers of Sutter, motivated by the desire to form a conventional melt-bonded composite having improved reinforcing fiber-matrix resin adhesion and bending strength.
Regarding Claim 22
Bero teaches that the nonwoven layers are permeable but does not teach specifically the ratio of permeability to basis weight (Id., figure 10, table 6). However, it should be noted that the ratio of permeability to basis weight is a result effective variable. As permeability relative to basis weight increases, the material exhibits greater degree of matrix resin infusion at the expense of stability and uniformity of the intermediate product. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the permeability of the fabric for a given basis weight, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the permeability/basis weight ratio in order to maximize strength and stability of the finished composite by balancing a stable layout and structure of reinforcing and meltable/melted fiber and matrix resin infiltration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention requires the matrix resin to impregnate the fiber substrate prior to the combination with the nonwoven fabric component, or that a nonwoven fabric without matrix is overlaid onto the preform to form the layered body. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are drawn to the product made and therefore are not considered in terms of process steps or specific ordering of process steps. The prior art combination teaches each claimed portion of the layered body including a matrix resin impregnated withing the fiber substrate. Additionally, the claims do not require the nonwoven fabric layer to lack a matrix material, and even imply that additional materials may be included since the nonwoven fabric comprises the phenoxy fibers as a “main component.”
Applicant argues that because of the order of processing steps present in the prior art combination, the product does not have the desired lack of cloudiness and/or air entrainment and good appearance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These properties are not claimed and therefore do not limit the scope of the invention. Even if the properties were present in the claims products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights