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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/26 has been entered.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110599 in view of JP 2007283758A and KR101378144B1 (machine translation attached).
Honma discloses a layered product comprising a plurality of continuous reinforcing filaments having a thermoset resin on side and a thermoplastic resin on the other side, wherein the filaments are in contact with both the thermoset resin and the thermoplastic resin. The thermoplastic resin forms one surface of the structure. See paragraph 0015 and figures. The fibers can be in the form of a plurality of layers of continuous filaments. See paragraph 0075. Looking at figure 2, the fibers appeared to be uniformly spaced throughout the structure, thus meeting the limitation that the fibers are distributed in a region of 80% or more or 90% or more of the thickness of each of the thermoset and thermoplastic layers and to be present in a volume content of 10% or more. Since the fibers appear to be uniformly distributed, it is reasonable to expect that the fibers have a coefficient of variation Q for fiber variation of 40% or less, or, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to have distributed the fibers as uniformly as possible, in order to provide a structure having uniform strength and other properties. The fibers can be carbon fibers. See paragraph 0022. Since the same fibers are used in Honma as in the present invention, it is reasonable to expect that the carbon fibers in the thermoplastic resin would have the properties of surface free energy as claimed in claim 6. Since the same structure is present as the claimed structure, it is reasonable to expect that the composite prepreg would display a curve as claimed at the interface with a roughness as claimed, since the same fibers and same thermoset and thermoplastic resins are employed to form the same structure, and because Honma teaches that the interface of the thermoplastic and thermosetting resin formed ruggedness at their interface. The structure can form a fiber reinforced plastic molded body.
Honma teaches a prepreg obtained by impregnating the groups of reinforcing fibers 13 with a thermosetting resin not yet set and impregnating a thermoplastic rein into the base material which can occur during preheating before the setting reaction, (see paragraph 0070), which is equated with the claimed prepreg impregnated with the uncured thermosetting resin and the thermoplastic resin. Further, paragraph 0139 discusses setting, (equated with curing), the thermosetting resin after the thermoplastic resin is provided at a temperature higher than the melting point of the thermoplastic resin.
Additionally, with regard to the claims as amended 2/12/26, Honma teaches in claim 14 of Honma that the structure is formed by disposing a base material for thermal bonding on a surface or a prepreg obtained by impregnating groups of reinforcing fibers consisting of numerous continuous filaments with a thermosetting resin not yet set, and impregnating said groups of reinforcing fibers with the thermoplastic resin of said base material for thermal bonding, during the setting reaction of said thermosetting resin or during preheating before the setting reaction. Therefore, Honma teaches a composite prepreg which includes the thermoplastic layer and an uncured thermosetting resin layer as claimed.
Honma does not disclose the claimed adhesion strength in the claimed N/mm.
However, Honma teaches the same structure made from the same materials in the same way as the claimed structure. Honma teaches that the structure has a bonding strength of 30MPa or lower. See paragraph 0099.
Additionally, KR ‘144 teaches selecting the solubility parameters of a thermoplastic resin and an uncured thermoset resin which are to be bonded together in order to form the strongest bond. See entire document, especially page 6 and page 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized the bonding of the two components, (thermoplastic material and thermoset material), by selecting the particular resins employed in order to provide the desired bond strength as taught by KR ‘144.
Honma differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the fibers in the thermoset resin are different than the fibers in the thermoplastic resin.
However, JP ‘758 teaches a structure comprising a fiber reinforced thermoset resin bonded to a fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin. JP ‘758 teaches using high strength fibers such as aramid fibers in the thermoplastic resin rather than carbon fibers as are used in the thermoset resin provides improved impact resistance. See page 2, lines 7-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed aramid fibers in the thermoplastic portion of the structure taught by Honma in order to provide improved impact resistance as taught by JP ‘758.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110599 in view of JP 2007283758A and KR101378144B1 with evidence from "Surface Energy Data for Aramid).
Honma in view of JP ‘758 teach employing aramid fibers in the thermoplastic portion but do not disclose the surface energy of the fibers. However, as shown by “Surface Energy Data for Aramid”, aramid fibers have a surface energy within the claimed range.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prepreg in Honma is only the uncured thermosetting resin and that the structure obtained when the thermoplastic resin is laminated onto the thermosetting prepreg is referred to as a layered product. However, as set forth above, claim 14 teaches that the thermoplastic resin portion can be applied to the uncured thermosetting resin during preheating, before curing. Therefore, the same structure would be present, regardless of what term Honma uses for the layered product.
Additionally, Honma teaches providing the uncured thermoset resin prepreg and providing a thermoplastic resin which melts at a temperature below the setting temperature of the thermoset resin, which would then result in a structure with the uncured thermoset resin and the thermoplastic resin flowed into and firmly bonded with the uncured resin. See paragraph 0039.
Applicant argues the office action fails to identify any single thermoplastic resin layer and thermosetting resin layer that are substantially identical to Applicant’s in terms of composition and process and that therefore in re Best cannot be applied to account for the claimed properties. However, the resins in Honma are the same as the claimed resins. Applicant claims and Honma teaches thermoplastic and thermoset resins. Honma teaches that forming the structure wherein the thermoplastic resin is melted and bonded with the thermoset resin before the thermoset resin is cured provides better adhesion. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to expect that either the adhesion strength would necessarily be present or that it would have been obvious to have selected the particular resins and fibers which produced the strongest bond. Additionally, JP ‘758 teaches employing aramid fibers in the thermoplastic resin rather than carbon fibers in order to provide impact resistance. Once the aramid fibers are substituted into the structure of Honma, the same layers and materials are present and therefore it is reasonable that the particular properties claimed would also be present. The same materials must have the same properties. Once the aramid fibers are used in the thermoplastic layer of Honma, the same layers are present, therefore, the same properties would necessarily be present.
Additionally, the office action states that it would have been obvious to have selected the two resins in order to provide the desired bond strength and to have distributed the fibers as evenly as possible in order to provide a uniform structure, rather than simply stating that the bond strength or uniformity of fibers would necessarily be present. Thus, if the properties are not necessarily present, the Honma teaches a method of firmly and strongly bonding a thermoplastic resin and a thermoset resin which are the claimed materials by melting the thermoplastic resin before the thermoset resin is cured, which is the same method for forming the claimed structure. Since Honma is generic to thermoplastic and thermoset resins, just as the instant claims are, one of ordinary skill would have been able to select from among known thermoset and thermoplastic resin combinations to provide a structure having the desired adhesion strength, especially since Honma teaches that using a thermoplastic resin which melts at a temperature below the curing temperature of the thermoset resin provides the best bond.
Applicant argues that the action fails to establish that adhesion strength is a result effective variable, that there would have been routine optimization and a reasonable chance of success. However, as set forth above, Honma teaches that the bond strength is best when resins are chosen such that the thermoplastic resin melts at temperatures below the curing temperature of the thermoset resin. Additionally, the newly applied KR ‘144 reference teaches selecting the resins so that they have particular solubility parameters in order to provide optimum adhesion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been able to select resins having relative temperatures as taught by Honma from among known thermoset and thermoplastic resins in order to provide the strongest bond.
Applicant argues that Honma does not teach that the reinforcing fibers are present in an least 80 or 90% of the structure. However, since the fibers are present in Honma in order to reinforce the entirety of the structure, and since there is nothing in Honma which indicates that differential reinforcement, or reinforcement only in particular areas is desired, it is reasonable to expect that the fibers would be distributed as uniformly as possible in order to provide a structure having uniform properties of strength, etc., throughout the entirety of the layers of the structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights