DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 1 August 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-6 as amended are pending, with claim 2 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 1 August 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-076198 A (“Kumiko”) as evidenced by US 2009/0220409 (“Curliss”).
As to claim 1, Kumiko teaches a composite material of a carbon fiber bundle (para. 0046), which as evidenced by Curliss, para. 0105 is formed of continuous fibers. Kumiko teaches forming thereon a networked thin film of carbon nanotubes, thus a networked structure. Kumiko teaches that the carbon nanotubes are adhered onto the surface of the carbon fiber (para. 0046), and are entangled with one another, thus in direct contact (para. 0052). While Kumiko does not state the carbon nanotubes are bent with a bent portion, the drawings of Kumiko, such as Figs. 1-5, show carbon nanotubes having bent shapes. The aforementioned network structure can be considered a three dimensional mesh structure (see Figs. 1a-1b), being networked and having a thickness, having void portions between the carbon nanotubes.
While the recited thickness range is not explicitly exemplified, Kumiko teaches that the thickness of the CNT network thin film (structure) is 100 nm or less, which substantially overlaps the recited range, and that such range is used so as to allow the entry of resin matrix (para. 0017); as such, the use of structures of networked CNTs of the recited thickness is an obvious modification suggested by Kumiko,
As to claim 3, Kumiko teaches a composite material of a carbon fiber bundle (para. 0046), which as evidenced by Curliss, para. 0105 is formed of continuous fibers. Kumiko teaches forming thereon a networked thin film of carbon nanotubes, thus a networked structure. Kumiko teaches that the carbon nanotubes are adhered onto the surface of the carbon fiber (para. 0046), and are entangled with one another, thus in direct contact (para. 0052). While Kumiko does not state the carbon nanotubes are bent with a bent portion, the drawings of Kumiko, such as Figs. 1-5, show carbon nanotubes having bent shapes. While Kumiko does not state the carbon nanotubes are bent with a bent portion, the drawings of Kumiko, such as Figs. 1-5, show carbon nanotubes having bent shapes. The aforementioned network structure can be considered a three dimensional mesh structure (see Figs. 1a-1b), being networked and having a thickness, having void portions between the carbon nanotubes.
While the recited thickness range is not explicitly exemplified, Kumiko teaches that the thickness of the CNT network thin film (structure) is 100 nm or less, which substantially overlaps the recited range, and that such range is used so as to allow the entry of resin matrix (para. 0017); as such, the use of structures of networked CNTs of the recited thickness is an obvious modification suggested by Kumiko. This teaching also suggests that the void portions between nanotubes are impregnated with matrix resin.
Kumiko teaches a carbon fiber reinforced molded article formed by pouring epoxy resin into the aforementioned composite material (para. 0049), which is thermosetting (para. 0029), and therefore hardens. Kumiko further teaches that portions of the thin film (composite structure) are in a crosslinked state between carbon fibers (para. 0019).
As to claim 4, Kumiko does not teach the Martens hardness of the composite region being greater than 10 % of the hardness of the matrix resin. However, since Kumiko teaches the same composite region and the same matrix resin, it is reasonable to conclude that the increase in Martens hardness is met.
As to claim 5, Kumiko does not teach the decrease in plastic deformation of the composite region with respect to the matrix resin. However, since Kumiko teaches the same composite region and the same matrix resin, it is reasonable to conclude that the recited decrease in plastic deformation is met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-076198 A (“Kumiko”) as evidenced by US 2009/0220409 (“Curliss”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2018/0112047 (“Komukai”).
As to claim 6, Kumiko does not discuss a sizing agent fixed to carbon nanotube surfaces. However, Komukai teaches a similar carbon fiber composite material, the composite material being adhered with carbon nanotubes, for the purpose of improving adherence with a matrix resin (see claim 1). After applying carbon nanotubes to the surface of carbon fiber, Kumiko teaches applying an epoxy resin onto the CNT decorated carbon fiber. As shown by Fig. 3, a small portion of the epoxy resin (indicated by 22) is adhered to nanotube (18a) surface, the amount shown being considerably less than 30 volume percent of the nanotube. While Komukai does not refer to this binding material as a sizing agent, it is an epoxy resin, which is a sizing as acknowledged by applicant, specification, para. 0062. Komukai teaches the use of this additional resin after adding the carbon nanotube network structure provides additional adhesive force between a base (matrix) material and the carbon fiber (para. 0009).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite material of Kumiko, using the epoxy treatment of Komukai, a sizing treatment, on the carbon nanotubes, including in the recited volume amount, so as to provide better adhesive force with a base (matrix) material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to claims 1 and 3 do not patentably distinguish over Kumiko, because Kumiko clearly teaches entangled carbon nanotubes, which would be expected to result in a nonwoven fabric mesh. The recited structure is supported by the text and drawings of Kumiko. Applicant cites a figure of Kumiko in comparison with drawings of the instant specification; this drawing appears to show a nonwoven fabric mesh of entangled carbon nanotubes, with void space inbetween the nanotubes; while the Fig. 13 of the instant specification shows a tighter mesh pattern, this does not appear to be a distinction in kind.
New claim 6 claims a distinction over Kumiko. However, the additional limitation is taught by Kumakai.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764