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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JPH059299, herein Ono, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), in the view of Tohru (US4769424, herein Tohru).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 14, 19, Ono teaches the molding prepreg obtained by impregnating a fiber substrate with the slurry [0006], wherein, the slurry composition [0001] which including: aromatic sulfide/sulfone polymer [0005] which is polyarylene sulfide copolymer, and the fiber base material include long fibers such as carbon fibers [0027], read on the continuous reinforcing fiber.
Ono does not explicitly teach the specific polyarylene sulfide copolymer structure feature as claimed.
However, Tohru teaches example 3 fibrous elastomer, which is the product was polyphenylene sulfide polydimethylsiloxane block copolymer [C10; L1] having the formula below, which is PAS based copolymer including the blocks of formula (b), wherein, the R is CH3; R1 and R2 are hydrogen; and imide linkage as indicated in structure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tohru further teaches the 1 to 99% of polyarylene sulfide blocks [C1; L46] overlaps the claimed range; and the product had a Tg of 108° C. and a Tm of 267° C [C9; L50] both lie in the claimed ranges, wherein, the Tg and Tm directly depend on the chemical structure, hence, can collectively lead to and reflect the claimed number average molecular weight (Mn) of 1,000 to 10,000.
Ono and Tohru are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Ono, that of polyarylene sulfide copolymer selection toward the heat-resistant and mechanical functional materials via tailoring the polyarylene sulfide-based block copolymeric structure and the specific property including: glass transition temperature.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to substitute the teachings of polyphenylene sulfide polydimethylsiloxane block copolymer [C10; L1] by Tohru, into the specified copolymer selection and further apply into composition formation. Doing so would lead to the composition formation with the specific the polyphenylene sulfide polydimethylsiloxane block copolymer [C10; L1] with the significantly improved heat distortion temperature [C1; L39], and further apply to the Ono’s the molding prepreg, further lead to the desired heat resistance and mechanical property.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP 2144.05
Regarding Claim 16, Ono teaches carbon fibers with a favorable reinforcing effect [0027] indicates the reinforcing fiber, in the range of 30 to 300 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the resin component [0027] overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the carbon fiber range, into the 30 to 300 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the resin component [0027] and further apply into composition formation. Doing so would lead to the material is easily permeated into the fiber substrate, and a favorable reinforcing effect is obtained [0027] as taught by Ono.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP 2144.05
Regarding Claim 18, Ono teaches “used as a molding material for electric/electronic parts” [0001] with the slurry composition and the fiber base material used in combination [0027] collectively read on the molded article of the fiber-reinforced polyarylene sulfide copolymer composite.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JPH059299, herein Ono, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Tohru (US4769424, herein Tohru) in the claim 10 as set forth above, in the further view of Imai (US20180362760, herein Imai).
Regarding Claim 15, Ono teaches the fiber base material include long fibers such as carbon fibers [0027], read on the continuous reinforcing fiber, but does not teach wherein the reinforcing fiber is continuously arranged in one direction.
However, Imai teaches “reinforcing fiber bundle comprising unidirectionally arranged monofilaments is continuous in the longitudinal direction” [0114] and “carbon fiber is used as a reinforcing fiber, which is more preferred” [0293], collectively read on the reinforcing fiber is continuously arranged in one direction.
Ono and Imai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of long carbon fiber and polyarylene sulfide copolymer-based functional resin composition toward to the advanced heat resistance, mechanical properties.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to add the teachings of Imai and provide wherein said the “reinforcing fiber bundle comprising unidirectionally arranged monofilaments is continuous in the longitudinal direction” [0114] and “carbon fiber is used as a reinforcing fiber, which is more preferred” [0293] into the composition formation. Doing so would lead to the desired property of unidirectionally arranged substrates are preferably used because strength properties can be easily designed depending on the lamination structure [0117] as taught by Imai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ono (JPH059299, herein Ono, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose), and Tohru (US4769424, herein Tohru).
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment to
independent claim 10, which has been addressed by the new rejection set forth above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767