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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 07, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 9 were amended and support for amendments are found in the Claims 2 and 9 as originally filed. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al., (JPS5962114; listed in the IDS dated 04/29/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Hirokazu”) in view of Okuda (WO2019172247; listed in the IDS dated 04/29/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Okuda”).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 8, Hirokazu teaches a composite molded article comprised of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin [Abstract; Lines 76-89 and 183-193] corresponding to the resin composition of Claim 1, and molded product of Claim 8. Hirokazu further teaches:
a thermoplastic resin [Lines 76-89 and 183-193] corresponding to the thermoplastic resin of Claim 1; and
carbon fibers [Lines 76-89 and 183-193] corresponding to the carbon fibers of Claim 1.
Hirokazu also teaches:
wherein the carbon fibers are twisted and as long and continuous as possible [Lines 76- 89];
the presence or absence of twists can be appropriately selected for its intended use [Lines 76-89]; and
that twisted carbon fiber bundles are preferred over non-twisted fibers because they are more reinforcing [Lines 76-89].
Hirokazu also teaches an embodiment of the molded article with a diameter of 0.6mm, and comprised of 3,000 carbon fiber filaments that are each 7 µm in diameter [Lines 193-199]. Hirokazu also teaches it is possible to obtain a molded article in which the voids between the fibers are completely filled with resin [Lines 76-89].
However, Hirokazu is silent to:
wherein the carbon fibers have substantially the same length as the length of the molding material of Claim 1;
the core ratio A/(A+B) is 0.1 to 0.5 of Claim 1;
the cross section areal void fraction is 5% or less of Claim 1; and
the twist angle of the carbon fiber surface layer is 2.00 to 30.5˚ of Claim 1.
While Hirokazu is silent to wherein the claimed carbon fibers have substantially the same length as the length of the molding material of Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the length of carbon fibers that are as long and continuous as possible of Hirokazu would be carbon fibers that are the length of the molding material, which overlaps the claimed carbon fiber length. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the carbon fiber length through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
While Hirokazu is silent to wherein the claimed areal void fraction is 5% or less of Claim 1 and a claimed void area of 3,000 µ2 or less of Claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that voids that are completely filled with resin implies that the molded article of Hirokazu has no voids. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that the absence of voids corresponds to an areal void fraction of 0% and a cross-sectional void area of zero, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of Claims 1 and 7, respectively. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the areal void fraction and void cross-sectional area through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
While Hirokazu is silent to the claimed core ratio of Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that a molded article that is 0.6 mm in diameter has a cross sectional area of 0.28 mm2 (
A
=
π
r
2
=
π
*
(
0.3
m
m
)
2
=
0.28
m
m
2
). It would have also been obvious that 3,000 carbon fibers that are each 7 µm in diameter would correspond to a total cross-sectional area of 0.12 mm2 (
A
=
3000
*
π
r
2
=
3000
*
π
*
(
3.5
µ
m
)
2
=
0.12
m
m
2
). Thus, the core ratio of the molded article would be 0.42 (
C
o
r
e
r
a
t
i
o
=
A
A
+
B
=
t
o
t
a
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
f
i
b
e
r
a
r
e
a
t
o
t
a
l
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
=
0.12
m
m
2
0.28
m
m
2
=
0.42
), where A = 0.12 mm2 and B = 0.16 mm2, which overlaps with the claimed core ratio range. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the core ratio through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Hirokazu is also silent to the claimed twist angle of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Okuda teaches a carbon fiber bundle [Abstract]. Okuda further teaches a twist angle of the fiber bundle surface layer is 0.2° or more [Paragraphs 0013-0016]. Okuda also teaches a twist angle in the aforementioned range results in a carbon fiber bundle that is excellent in convergence, handleability and mechanical properties [Paragraph 0050].
Hirokazu and Okuda are considered to be analogous art as the claimed molded material, as all are in the same field of carbon fiber bundles that are twisted with strong tensile moduli, and that are heat resistant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the molded article of Hirokazu by adding twisted carbon fibers as taught by Hirokazu and Okuda. This modification would result in a molded article that is more reinforced, and with excellent convergence, handleability and mechanical properties, thereby improving the final product and arriving at the claimed invention. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that the taught twist angle of Okuda overlaps the claimed twist angle range. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the twist angle through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Hirokazu is silent to the claimed volume fraction Vf of 5% to 25% and to the volume fraction of the carbon fibers in the core portion is in the range of 33% to 67% of Claim 9.
However, Hirokazu teaches a carbon fiber fraction in the range of 10 to 70%, which overlaps with the volume fraction Vf of the carbon fibers is 5% to 25% of Claims 2 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the carbon fiber fraction taught by Hirokazu (10-70%) overlaps with the claimed volume fraction range (5-25%). By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the carbon fiber volume fraction through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, Hirokazu and Okuda teach the molding material, resin, and carbon fibers with sufficient specificity that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” different portions of carbon fiber in the core portion and sheath portion as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Hirokazu is silent to the claimed tensile modulus of carbon fibers is 280 to 500 GPa.
However, Okuda teaches a carbon fiber bundle with a preferable modulus of 280 GPa or more [Paragraph 0034]. Okuda also teaches higher strand moduli are preferable because the higher the stiffness, the greater the reinforcing effect of the carbon fibers [Paragraph 0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the tensile modulus range of Okuda overlaps the claimed range. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the tensile modulus through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the molded article of Hirokazu by tailoring the tensile modulus to improve the reinforcing effect of the carbon fibers as taught by Okuda.
Regarding Claim 4, Hirokazu is silent to the claimed the weight loss rate on heating at 450˚C of the carbon fibers is 0.15% or less.
However, Okuda teaches a weight loss rate on heating at 450˚C of the carbon fibers is 0.15% or less [Paragraph 0013]. Okuda also teaches that a carbon fiber bundle with a low rate of heat loss under such conditions generates less pyrolysis products and less likely to develop bubbles when exposed to high temperatures [Paragraph 0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the weight loss rate of Okuda corresponds with the claimed range. By choosing the overlapping portion of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants, it has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05(I). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to tune the weight loss rate through routine optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the molded article of Hirokazu by tailoring the weight loss rate to improve the carbon fiber properties at high temperatures as taught by Okuda.
Regarding Claim 5, Hirokazu teaches carbon fiber with a diameter of 7 µm [Lines 194-195] thereby falling within the claimed range of 6.0 µm or more.
Regarding Claim 6, Hirokazu is silent to the claimed crystallinity parameter Iv/lg of the carbon fibers is 0.25 to 0.80.
However, Okuda teaches a carbon fiber bundle with a preferable modulus of 280 Gpa or more [Paragraph 0034]. The instant Specification discloses that carbon fibers with a tensile modulus of 380 Gpa have an Iv/Ig ratio of less than 0.2 and those with tensile modulus of 230 to 290 Gpa have an Iv/Ig ratio of 0.70 or more [Paragraph 0019]. Therefore, the crystallinity parameters of the carbon fibers, such as Iv/Ig, are a function of the tensile modulus of the carbon fibers as explained in the Instant Specification. As such, since Okuda teaches a carbon fiber bundle with a tensile modulus that overlaps with the disclosed tensile modulus range, it would be expected that the crystallinity parameter of the carbon fibers of Okuda would also overlap the required crystallinity parameter Iv/Ig range. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed molding material having the claimed crystallinity parameters, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (carbon fibers and resin composition) within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) the claimed features provide for advantageous physical properties while maintaining satisfactory dispersibility properties as shown in comparative tests summarized in Table 1. However, the data has been considered but not found to be convincing. Examples 1-4 all have twist angles of 6.6˚ whereas the claimed range is 2-30.5˚, and thus, the claimed range is not commensurate in scope with the presented data. Furthermore, Comparative Examples 2-3 have areal void fractions of 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively, that are within the claimed range of <5%, and yet they produce molded products with poor dispersibility. Similarly, Comparative Examples 1-5 have core ratios of 0.42, 0.41, 0.39, 0.46, 0.30, respectively, that are within the claimed range of 0.1-0.5, and yet they produce molded products with poor dispersibility. Applicant argues unexpected results with the claimed features but the data presented in Table 1 of the instant Specification demonstrates that features inside and outside the claimed ranges have similar properties that the applicant claims are advantageous. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It is suggested that experimental data be presented with multiple data points inside and outside of the claimed ranges that demonstrate advantageous physical properties when within, but not outside of, the claimed range.
Applicant argues (2) that the Okuda declaration establishes that Comparative Examples 1 and 2 of Hirokazu have an areal void fraction well above 5% such that these comparative examples clearly fail to include feature [5] of the claimed invention. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above wherein Hirokazu teaches a molded article in which the voids between the fibers are completely filled with resin [Lines 76-89], which implies an areal void fraction of zero, which anticipates the claimed range of <5%. Comparative Examples 1 and 2 of Hirokazu also achieve “a good impregnation state” [Line 395].
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate or obviate the listed claims, since the Hirokazu disclosure has the same assignee as the instant application, Toray Composite Materials America, Inc., it is suggested that experimental data be provided demonstrating that the composite molded article of Hirokazu does in fact have an areal void fraction well above 5%. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (3) Hirokazu '114 fails to disclose or suggest employment of a carbon fiber surface layer twist angle of 2.0˚ to 30.5˚ as in feature [2] of the claimed invention. However, the rejection of the carbon fiber surface layer twist angle above was not in view of Hirokazu alone but Hirokazu in view of Okuda. Okuda teaches a twist angle >2˚ which overlaps with the claimed range (see rejection of Claim 1 above). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (4) Hirokazu '114 also clearly fails to disclose or suggest the combination of both a core/sheath structure and an areal void fraction of 5% or less, as in features [3], [4] and [5] of the claimed invention. Regarding, feature [5], however, attention is directed to the disclosure outlined above, wherein Hirokazu teaches and an areal void fraction of zero [Lines 76-89]. Regarding feature [4], however, while Hirokazu does not explicitly calculate the core ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the core ratio of the molded article of Hirokazu would be 0.42, which corresponds to the claimed ratio of 0.1 to 0.5, if it were subjected to the same calculations as the instantly claimed molding material. Regarding feature [3], Claim 1 defines the sheath portion as "the remaining portion" while the instant Specification defines the sheath portion as being "substantially free of carbon fibers." However, the instant Specification does not provide a standard for a person of ordinary skill to ascertain the maximum amount of carbon fibers the sheath may contain to be considered "substantially free of carbon fibers." For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrase “substantial portion” was held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). In the absence of such a standard, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the "sheath" of Claim 1 could include a “portion” that encases a core, wherein said core may contain at least some carbon fibers. Hirokazu teaches a carbon fiber bundle that is coated with thermoplastic resin [Abstract; Lines 76-89], which one of ordinary skill would interpret to read on a portion that encases a core, wherein said core may contain at least some carbon fibers. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (5) Hirokazu '114 fails to provide any basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art (a POSA) to pursue feature [2] or the combination of features [3], [4] and [5] to head in the direction of the claimed invention. However, Hirokazu motivates "coating the thermoplastic resin on the carbon fiber bundle" [Line 153] since thermoplastic resins may contain various additives for improving their properties, such as heat resistance agents, weather resistance agents, agents for preventing deterioration by ultraviolet light, antistatic agents, lubricants, release agents, colorants such as dyes and pigments, crystallization promoters, and flame retardants [Lines 149-152]. Furthermore, Hirokazu teaches the presence or absence of twists can be appropriately selected for its intended use [Lines 76-89]; and motivates twisted carbon fiber bundles are preferred over non-twisted fibers because they are more reinforcing [Lines 76-89].Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Hirokazu not only teaches the twist angle and core structure surrounded by a sheath structure, but provides numerous reasons why adding such a sheath may impart benefits to said core structure. Furthermore, Hirokazu, as a primary reference in a 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is not required to provide a motivation to modify a teaching. It is improper to show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, such as Hirokazu in view of Okuda, wherein Okuda teaches a twist angle of 0.2° or more [Paragraphs 0013-0016]. Okuda also teaches a twist angle in the aforementioned range results in a carbon fiber bundle that is excellent in convergence, handleability and mechanical properties [Paragraph 0050]. Furthermore, Okuda provides strong motivations to twist the carbon fibers ("to improve handleability and advanced processability" [¶0004]) and to have a low areal void fraction (“suppressing the accumulation of fuzz during the production process and thereby improving production efficiency” [¶0004]), which provide strong rationales to modify the material of Hirokazu with the teachings of Okuda. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Okuda fails to disclose (6) the core/sheath structure, (7) the core ratio, (8) the areal void fraction, (9) a basis for a POSA to employ any perpendicular cross section, core ratio and areal void fraction, and that (10) Okuda fails to make up for deficiencies of Hirokazu with respect to the perpendicular cross section and areal void fraction. However, it is improper to show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, such as Hirokazu in view of Okuda. Furthermore, Okuda provides strong motivations to twist the carbon fibers ("to improve handleability and advanced processability" [¶0004]) and to have a low areal void fraction (“suppressing the accumulation of fuzz during the production process and thereby improving production efficiency” [¶0004]), which provide strong rationales to modify the material of Hirokazu with the teachings of Okuda. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in the Affidavit filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Point 4) that it is not clear if areal void fraction of less than 5% is achieved since this parameter is not clearly measured in Hirokazu. However, Hirokazu acknowledges that a known problem in the field is that "it is difficult to completely fill the gaps between carbon fibers with resin" [Page 1] and the resin filament of Hirokazu aims to address this problem by achieving a "reinforcement form that effectively utilizes the excellent mechanical properties of carbon fiber in this way, it is important to…completely fill gaps between the carbon fibers with a flexible resin" [Page 2]. Furthermore, Hirokazu teaches optimization of a method of production to uniformly impregnant carbon fibers without voids, methods such as "the roll treatment temperature must be equal to or higher than the melting point or softening point of the thermoplastic resin" [Page 5] and "the gap between at least one pair of rolls is narrow enough to substantially reduce the diameter of the filament that passes through it" [Page 6] to sufficiently obtain a filament in which the resin is uniformly impregnated such that "all the gaps between the fibers are filled with resin" [Page 6]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Hirokazu acknowledges that voids in carbon fiber resins are a well known issue in the field and that Hirokazu tries to address this issue with in their claimed invention that produces a carbon fiber resin that does not have voids. Hirokazu also states that their claimed invention “a carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin strip in which the voids between the figures are completely filled with resin” [Page 5]. It is obvious that Hirokazu aimed to and actually produced a carbon fiber resin that does not have voids. And it is obvious that having zero voids reads on having less than a 5% areal void fraction of Claim 1. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate or obviate the listed claims, since the Hirokazu disclosure has the same assignee as the instant application, Toray Composite Materials America, Inc., it is suggested that experimental data be provided demonstrating that the composite molded article of Hirokazu does in fact have an areal void fraction well above 5%.
Applicant argues (Point 5) that due to insufficient resin impregnation into the carbon fiber bundle, voids among the fibers remained as an insufficient amount of resin was present to adhere the fibers together, which is the reason that the fibers "fell out." However, Examiner cannot find where Hirokazu teaches "good impregnation state was not achieved." It is suggested that the Applicant provide citations when referencing specific teachings. Furthermore, whether or not the fibers “fell out” of the resin is not claimed material. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-3961. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764